LIBRARY                   I 

OF    THE 

Th 

eological    Seminary, 

PRINCETON.    N.    J.' 

( 

BV    630    .H6 

Hovey,    Alvah,    1820-1903. 

Religion  and   the   state 

1 

-  - — ^' 

^is^- 


RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 


PROTECTION    OR    ALLIANCE? 

TAXATION    OR    EXEMPTION? 


BY    ALVAn    HO  VET,    D.  D., 

PRESIDENT  OF  "KEWTON  THEOLOGICAL  INSTITUTION. 


BOSTON : 

ESTES     AND     LAURIAT: 

143   WASHINGTON    STREET. 
187-t. 


Entered,  according  to  Act  of  Congress,  in  tlie  year  1874, 

BY  ESTES  AND  LAURIAT, 

In  the  Ofllce  of  the  Librarian  of  Congress,  at  Washington. 


BROWN  TYPE-SETTING  MACHINERY,   40  HANOVER  STREET. 


PREFACE, 


"When  passing  througli  England,  from  Liverpool  to  Hull,  a 
dozen  years  ago,  the  writer  saw,  in  a  succession  of  country 
towns,  large  placards  advertising  a  certain  newspaper,  as 
"the  only  one  in  the  kingdom  which  gives  all  sides  of  e\ery 
question."  Many  thoughts  were  started  by  this  clever 
notice.  It  wa^  the  perfection  of  boasting :  but  it  was  more  ; 
it  was  suggestive  of  the  wisdom  of  looking  at  the  great 
problems  of  life  from  as  many  points  of  view,  and  with  as 
many  eyes  as  possible,  before  pronouncing  them  solved. 

Of  these  problems  few  are  worthy  of  more  earnest  and 
impartial  study  than  the  one  discussed  in  the  following  pages. 
And  the  hour  has  come  when  this  investigation  must  be 
made.  A  journal  that  could  ''give  all  sides"  of  this  one 
question  in  the  manner  best  suited  to  enlighten  the  people, 
and  lead  them  to  wise  action,  would  have  a  great  number  of 
readers  in  every  State  of  the  Union.  A  volume  that  should 
do  this  within  a  reasonable  compass,  would  merit  the  attention 
of  all  who  speak  the  English  tongue. 

In  the  discussion  which  follows,  the  reader  is  called  to  look 
at  only  a  few  aspects  of  the  connection  between  Church  and 
State,  and  at  these  aspects  from  only  certain  points  of  view. 


PREFACE. 


namely  :  those  which  are  thought  to  be  the  most  elevated 
and  helpful  to  perfect  vision.  The  principal  relations  of  gov- 
ernment to  religion  are  examined  in  a  spirit  of  loyalty  to 
both  ;  and,  if  the  position  maintained  is  right,  tbese  relations 
should  be  made  the  same  in  every  land,  at  the  earliest  moment 
practicable.  Should  the  discussion  contribute  in  any  measure 
to  a  proper  solution  of  the  great  problem  under  examination, 
it  will  accomplish  the  desire  of  the  Author. 
Newton  Centee,  March  5,  1874. 


CONTENTS. 


PREFACE         5 

INTRODUCTION 7 

THE  KIN GD  031  OF  CHRIST 9 

THE  STATE 19 

PROTECTION  OF  LIFE  BY  THE  STATE     -        -  35 

PR OTECTION  OF  LIBERTY  B  Y  THE  STATE          -  47 

THE  LORD'S  DAY 60 

THE  BIBLE  IN  SCHOOLS 80 

PROTECTION  OF  PROPERTY,  ETC.,        -        -        -  93 

CHARITABLE  ESTABLISHMENTS    -        -        -        -  111 

GENERAL  OBSERVATIONS 127 

FURTHER  REMARKS 147 

RESUME 164 


INTRODUCTION. 


The  following  discussion  was  published  about 
three  years  ago,  in  a  series  of  articles,  by  a 
leading  religious  paper  of  New  York.*  Natu- 
rally, therefore,  the  course  of  thought  was 
adapted  in  some  measure  to  those  who  were 
expected  to  read  it;  that  is,  to  Christian  men 
and  women  of  a  particular  denomination.  The 
writer  cannot  see  that  any  important  end  would 
be  gained  by  attempting  to  obliterate  all  traces 
of  that  original  adaptation,  especially  as  no  sect- 
arian aim  was  followed  at  the  time.  As  then 
stated,  the  object  of  the  discussion  was  not  to 
make  out  a  case  either  for  or  against  any  body  of 
Christians,  but  to  ascertain,  if  possible,  whether 

♦  The  Examiner  and  Chronicle, 


INTRODUCTION. 


Christian  churches  or  denominations  should 
seek  from  the  State  anything  more  than  protec- 
tion in  the  exercise  of  their  natural  rights. 
Now,  as  then,  it  is  addressed  primarily  to  those 
who  believe  in  the  Christian  religion  as  true; 
hence  it  assumes  the  truth  of  that  religion,  and 
only  seeks  to  convince  those  who  love  and 
honor  it  of  the  impropriety  of  asking  assistance 
from  the  State  in  maintaining  it. 


RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 


THE   KINGDOM   OF   CHRIST. 

A  discussion  of  this  subject  must  naturally 
begin  with  the  kingdom  of  Christ  upon  earth. 
For  the  laws  of  this  kingdom  are  definite  and 
supreme.  One  is  required  to  forsake  all,  if 
need  be,  that  he  may  obey  them;  houses  and 
lands,  father  and  mother,  wife  and  children, 
are  to  be  relinquished,  rather  than  Clirist  and 
his  truth.  Although  the  general  duty  of  sub- 
jection to  **the  powers  that  be,"  or  the  laws 
and  rulers  of  the  State,  is  very  sacred,  it  can- 
not be  urged  as  a  valid  excuse  for  disregarding 
the  Lord's  requirement  to  coufess  Him  before 
men.    It  was  therefore  the  duty  of  the  Apostles 


10  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

to  preach  the  good  news  of  salvation  through 
Christ,  though  forbidden  to  do  this  by  "the 
highest  human  authority  to  wliich  they  could 
have  felt  that  they  owed  allegiance,"  and  even 
to  say  boldly,  in  presence  of  this  great  court: 
''It  is  right  to  obey  God  rather  than  men." 
And  this  fact  of  a  higher  law  for  the  Christian, 
of  a  paramount  duty  on  his  part  to  be  a  loyal 
and  obedient  subject  in  the  kingdom  of  Christ, 
affords  a  strong  presumption  that,  kept  within 
their  proper  spheres,  and  directed  to  the  attain- 
ment of  their  distinctive  ends,  the  authority  of 
Christ  and  that  of  the  State  will  never  come 
into  collision.  And  this  is  equivalent  to  saying 
*that  their  spheres,  and  aims,  and  methods  are 
very  distinct ;  that  the  kingdom  of  Christ  is  on 
a  different  and  higher  plane  than  the  State. 

It  was  this  fact  that  made  it  so  hard  for  the 
Jews  of  our  Saviour's  time  to  see  in  Him  the 
promised  Messiah.  For  they  were  expecting  a 
restoration  of  the  theocracy,  a  perfect  and  final 


THE   KINGDOM    OF   CHRIST.  11 

union  of  Church  and  State,  religion  being 
sustained  by  the  civil  power,  and  the  civil 
power  sanctified  by  religion.  They  were  look- 
ing for  One  to  fill  the  vacant  throne  of  their 
royal  line,  who  should  unite  the  heroism  of 
David  with  the  wisdom  of  Solomon,  and  by 
an  era  of  conquest  usher  in  an  age  of  peace; 
who,  as  the  favorite  of  Jehovah  and  the  pride 
of  all  the  people,  should  bear,  like  the  Pope 
in  other  days,  two  swords — the  temporal  and  the 
spiritual— and  lead  the  nation  to  victory  over 
the  Gentiles,  as  well  as  to  holier  worship  in 
Zion.  It  is  not  therefore  surprising  that  many 
welcomed  the  harbinger  of  Christ  preaching 
repentance,  and  listened  without  offence,  though 
not  without  wonder,  to  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount,  but  turned  away  from  Jesus  with 
contempt  when  He  refused  to  wear  an  earthly 
crown.  Nor  is  it  altogether  unaccountable 
that  the  chosen  twelve,  who  were  the  daily 
companions  of  the   Lord,  expected,  until  the 


12  RELIGION   AND    THE    STATE. 

very  hour  of  his  betrayal,  that  He  would  yet 
be  a  temporal  prince,  uniting  divine  authority 
Avith  human,  the  sanctions  of  religion  with 
the  power  of  the  sword,  and  making  his 
kingdom  one  of  this  world.  It  was  extremely 
difficult  for  them  to  receive  the  idea  of  a 
spiritual  dominion  resting  on  the  power  of 
grace  and  truth. 

But  it  was  such  a  kingdom,  on  a  plane  far 
above  that  of  any  earthly  authority,  that  Christ 
came  to  establish.  It  was  such  a  kingdom  that 
He  professed  to  rule,  in  his  language  to  Pilate: 

* 'My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world;  if  my 
kingdom  were  of  this  world,  my  servants  would 
fijrht.  I  am  a  kins:.  To  this  end  have  I  been 
born,  and  to  this  end  am  I  come  into  the  world, 
that  I  may  bear  witness  to  the  truth.  Every 
one  that  is  of  the  truth,  heareth  my  voice." 

Pilate  was  convinced  by  the  divine  bearing 
and  candor  of  Jesus,  that  whatever  might  be 
his    authority,   whether   real    or  imaginary,    it 


vV 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  CHRIST.  13 

pertained  to  religion,  and  not  to  the  State;  it 
rested  in  no  degree  upon  secnlar  power,  and 
contemplated  in  no  case  an  appeal  to  the  sec- 
ular arm.  And  this  testimony  of  Christ  was 
in  absolute  harmony  with  the  whole  tenor  of 
his  life  and  teaching.  He  took  no  step  to 
connect  his  cause  with  the  State  as  such.  He 
threw  out  no  hint  of  its  needing  the  support 
of  the  civil  power.  He  provided  for  no  states- 
men or  soldiers  to  carry  on  his  work,  but  only 
for  preachers  and  tcMchers.  Had  not  the  Jews 
been  strangely  tenacious  of  their  belief,  and 
strangely  blind  to  the  spirit  of  Jesus,  they 
would  have  perceived,  much  sooner  than  they 
did,  that  his  dominion  over  men  must  ever  be 
spiritual,  no  imaginable  state  of  affairs  being 
likely  to  make  Him  accept  an  earthly  crown. 
And  his  Apostles  came  at  last  to  understand 
this.  By  the  death,  the  resurrection,  and  the 
ascension  of  Christ;  by  the  outpouring  of  the 
Spirit  on  the  day  of  Pentecost,  and  the  light 


14  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

of  inspiration  added  to  that'  of  providence, 
they  were  made  to  know  that  their  Lord's 
dominion  was  not  civil  and  national,  but  spir- 
itual and  universal;  not  of  this  world  and 
sustained  by  force,  but  from  above j  and  sup- 
ported by  grace;  and  to  comprehend  the  new 
and  great  fact  that,  though  engaged  in  a  fearful 
conflict,  the  weapons  of  their  warfare  were  not 
carnal,  but  mighty  through  God  to  casting 
down  strongholds,  and  bringing  every  thought 
into  captivity  to  the  obedience  of  Christ.  And 
one  of  them,  writing  to  the  Ephesian  saints, 
utters,  in  view  of  their  spiritual  foes,  this 
stirring  cry: 

"Wherefore  take  unto  you  the  whole  armor 
of  God,  that  ye  may  be  able  to  withstand  in 
the  evil  day,  and,  having  done  all,  to  stand" — 
going  on  then  to  enumerate  in  terms  of  blessed 
confidence  the  parts  of  this  divine  panoply  for 
the  Christian.  All  of  them  may  be  embraced 
in  four  words,  Christian  character   and  Chris- 


THE  KINGDOM  OF  CHRIST.  15 

tian  truth.  Without  the  former,  his  readers 
were  sure  to  be  betrayed  by  traitors  within ; 
and  without  the  latter,  they  were  in  danger 
of  being  put  to  shame  by  external  foes.  But 
armed  with  grace  and  truth  from  Him  who 
has  infinite  store  of  both,  they  are  able  to 
repel  every  assault,  and  win  from  seeming 
defeat  real  victory. 

The  records  of  history  justify  this  language. 
For  the  rage  of  paganism,  fierce  as  a  bear 
robbed  of  her  whelps,  the  scorn  of  philosophy, 
falsely  so  called,  the  sword  of  the  State  wielded 
by  the  fanaticism  of  a  perverted  Church,  and  the 
pride  of  natural  science,  soaring  with  untried 
wings  into  the  heights  of  speculation,  have 
been  met,  one  after  another,  and  put  to  shame 
by  the  simple  majest}^  of  Christian  character 
and  Christian  truth. 

Indeed,  these  are  the  only  weapons  with 
which  they  have  ever  been  successfully  met. 
They  are  weapons  of  celestial  origin   and  tern- 


16  RELIGION  AXD   THE  STATE. 

per,  not  made  with  hands,  but  given  by  the 
Lord  of  life;  and  therefore  are  they  certain 
to  prevail  over  those  of  grosser  material,  fash- 
ioned by  the  skill  of  man. 

The  lesson  from  all  this  would  seem  to  be, 
that  the  kingdom  of  Christ  is  independent  of 
the  State,  raling  in  a  higher  sphere  and  with 
a  view  to  higher  interests,  having  laws  and 
forces  of  its  own  that  agree  in  character  and 
work  in  harmony  towards  the  same  great  end, 
and  that  any  attempt  to  unite  the  two  must 
be  fraught  with  peril  to  the  higher,  if  not  to 
the  lower. 

Most  manifest  is  it  that  the  hiorher  has  no 
need  of  direct  assistance  from  the  lower  in 
accomplishing  the  ends  for  which  it  was  es- 
tablished among  men;  and  that  any  admission 
of  the  lower  into  its  proper  domain  and  work, 
will  soil  its  purity  and  weaken  its  power. 

But  the  reader  may  be  saying  in  his  heart. 
Why  this    protracted  account  of   the   kingdom 


rilE    KINGDOM  OF  CHRIST.  17 

of  Christ?  For  no  one,  who  understands  the 
lirst  principles  of  the  Christian  faith,  can 
doubt  the  spirituality  of  that  kingdom.  In 
origin,  nature,  power  and  aim  it  is  spiritual; 
and  a  fact  so  thoroughly  comprehended  and 
universally  believed  might  safely  be  assumed 
in  this  discussion.  Perhaps  it  might;  but 
there  is  sometimes  pleasure  and  profit  in  re- 
viewing accepted   truths. 

The  vision  is  often  cleared  by  looking  at 
the  springs  of  faith,  the  simplest,  deepest, 
most  fruitful  germs  of  a  divine  creed.  Line 
upon  line  is  the  wisdom  of  God  on  this  point; 
for  in  the  conflict  of  life  even  good  men  are 
liable  t(}  forget  their  principles.  Having  ap- 
plied them  to  a  certain  extent,  as  far,  it  may 
be,  as  their  own  safety  or  success  requires,  they 
are  in  danger  of  being  satisfied  with  this,  and 
making  little  effort  beyond. 

The  most  faithful  and    consistent   advocates 

of  soul-liberty  have  ever  been  those  who  were 
9 


18  RELIGIOX  uiND  THE  STATE. 

suffering  under  religious  oppression.  If  his 
own  ox  be  not  gored,  the  farmer  rests  in 
peace.  And  if  the  more  remote  and  less  ob- 
vious applications  of  a  principle  might  forbid 
men  to  accept  a  present  good,  their  attention 
is  very  apt  to  fix  itself  on  the  supposed  good, 
to  the  neglect  of  the  principle  that  might 
interfere  with   its   attainment. 

But  the  conduct  of  life  ought  surely  to  be 
controlled  by  principle  rather  than  l^y  policy; 
and  therefore,  when  attempting  to  answer  great 
questions  of  duty,  it  is  imiformily  wise  to  go 
back  and  look  at  elementary  truth.  Hence  it 
was  felt  that  the  present  discussion  must  begin 
with  a  glance  at  the  nature  of  Christ's  king- 
dom on  earth,  in  order  to  consider,  in  the  next 
place,  with  advantage,  the  nature  and  ends  of 
human  government,  or  the  State. 


THE   STATE. 

For  the  purposes  of  this  investigation,  it 
will  be  safe  to  assume  that  civil  government 
is  ordained  of  God.  This  fact  is,  indeed, 
plainly  asserted  by  the  Apostle  in  his  letter 
to  the  Romans.  But  apart  from  that  assertion, 
it  may  be  affirmed  with  entire  confidence  by 
every  one  who  believes  in  the  existence  of 
God;  for  it  is  distinctly  revealed  by  the  light 
of  nature. 

The  Maker  of  man  has  testified,  by  the 
powers  and  instincts  given  to  men,  that  they 
were  meant  for  society;  were  meant  for  in- 
tercourse, companionship,  and  sympathy;  not 
for  solitude.  The  marvellous  powder  of  speech 
is  of  itself  proof  enough  of  God's  design  in  this 


20  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

respect.  But  human  society  presupposes  human 
government.  A  slight  study  of  either  the  nature 
or  the  history  of  mankind,  will  convince  the 
most  skeptical  that  without  civil  authority,  the 
evil  wall  trample  on  the  good,  and  anarchy 
prove  itself  even  w^orse  than  solitude. 

The  State  is  therefore  of  God,  in  the  same 
sense  that  lahor  is  of  God.  It  is  a  law  of 
nature,  as  well  as  of  revelation,  that  he  who 
will  not  w^ork,  neither  shall  he  cat;  and  it  is 
equally  a  law  of  nature  and  of  revelation,  that 
men  w^ho  will  not  sustain  and  obey  civil  gov- 
ernment, shall  perish.  In  both  cases  there  may 
be  exceptions  to  the  rule ;  but  in  both  cases  the 
rule  is  divine. 

Yet  no  particular  form  of  government  is 
prescribed  by  the  Word  of  God;  or,  so  far  as 
now  appears,  by  the  voice  of  reason.  Probably 
no  one  form  would  be  best  for  all  nations  at  all 
times;  for  it  must  be  admitted  that  the  in- 
telligence and  virtue  of  the  people  differ  very 


THE   STATE,  £1 


greatly  in  different  ages  and  nations,  while 
certain  forms  of  government  seem  to  require 
more  knowledge,  virtue  .and  stability  in  the 
masses  than  are  required  by  others. 

France  has  not  yet  shown  herself  to  be  pre- 
pared for  republican  institutions,  like  those 
which  have  been  so  great  a  blessing  to  tlie 
American  people.  All,  then,  that  can  be  said  y 
without  qualification,  is  this:  That  form  of  gov- 
ernment is  best  for  any  nation  which  accom- 
plishes best  the  ends  which  it  ought  to  seek. 
Adaptation  to  secure  its  proper  ends  is  the 
highest,  if  not  the  only,  proof  of  its  excellence. 

But  what  are  the  legitimate  ends  of  human 
government?  Three  answers  have  been  given 
to  this  question,  supported  by  three  view^s  of 
government,  which  may  be  called,  for  conven- 
ience, the  Roman,  the  Paternal,  and  the  Pro- 
tective. The  first  regards  the  people  as  means, 
the  second  as  minors,  and  the   third  as  men. 

According  to  the  Roman  view,  the  State  may 


22  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 


"^be  called  its  own  end.  The  people  are  looked 
upon  as  springing  from  the  State,  belonging  to 
the  State,  and  invested  with  all  their  rights  by 
the  State.  Though  itself  invisible,  and  perhaps 
ideal,  the  State  is  represented  by  the  rulers  of 
the  people,  and  therefore  this  fraction  of  the 
intelligence  and  conscience  of  the  nation  has 
primarily  all  the  rights  pertaining  to  the  whole 
body.  Such  a  theory  needs ^no  refutation;  for 
by  the  greatest  ingenuity  of  statement  it  can 
only  be  made  to  seem  plausible,  while  it  is 
rejected,  notwithstanding,  by  the  good  sense 
of  most  men,  as  radically  unsound. 

According  to  the  Paternal  view,  the  govern- 
ment stands,  as  it  were,  in  loco  ^^areji^^'s, 
regarding  the  people  as  children  and  minors,  to 
be  controlled,  educated,  protected,  and,  if  need 
be,  supported.  Almost  anything  which  "the 
powers  that  be"  deem  useful  to  the  masses, 
they  may  do.  Food,  clothing,  study,  recre- 
ation,   work,    worship,    all   may  be    regulated 


THE   STATE.  23 


by  the  State,  provided  it  is  done  with  a  wise 
regard  for  the  best  good  of  the  people.  And 
this  view  strikes  the  fancy  of  many  as  exceed- 
ingly beautiful  and  reasonable.  It  is  generally 
acceptable  to  royal  families  and  the  nobility. 
The  late  Emperor  of  the  French  had  a  strong 
leani^ng  to  it,  and  the  Czar  of  Russia  may  be 
safely  counted  in  its  favor.  It  supposes  rulers 
to  be  distin2:uished  for  wisdom  and  croodness, 
to  be  men  of  large  intelligence  and  lofty 
virtue,  quite  undisturbed  by  local  influences 
or  the  hot  currents  of  partisan  zeal. 

But  tested  by  the  actual  character  of  rulers, 
tested  by  what  governments  acting  on  this 
theory  have  done  for  the  good  of  the  people, 
tested  by  the  position  which  it  gives  to  the 
governed,  and  by  the  right  which  it  claims  to 
intermeddle  with  everything  private  and  sacred 
on  the  plea  of  caring  for  the  welfare  of  the 
minors  under  its  charge,  it  does  not  commend 
itself  to  a  thoughtful  mind.     It  provides  for 


7 


24  RELIGION  AND   THE  STATE, 

too  much  official  control,  and  expects  too  little 
self-control;  it  puts  the  civil  conscience  too 
high,  and  the  private  conscience  too  low;  it 
overrates  the  wisdom  of  rulers,  and  underrates 
the  judgment  of  ordinary  men.  Such  a  theory 
must  therefore  be  pronounced  unsatisfactory. 
L  According  to  the  last,  or  Protective  view, 
the  chief  end  of  the  State  is  to  guard  the 
natural  rights  of  the  people,  to  render  life, 
liberty  and  property  secure  in  every  part  of 
its  domain.  It  looks  upon  the  people  as  men, 
and  accords  to  them  rights  and  duties  which 
cannot  be  transferred  to  their  rulers.  It  as- 
sumes that  a  true  and  full  manhood  can  only 
be  developed  by  self-control,  self-culture,  and 
the  solemn  discipline  of  grave  personal  respon- 
sibility;  and  therefore  it  leaves  many  important 
juterests — indeed,  all  but  those  named  above — 
to  the  care  and  enterprise  of  good  men,  acting 
freely,  as  conscience  or  benevolence  may  dic- 
tate.    Above  all,  it  shrinks  from  invading  the 


THE    STATE.  2o 


right  of  the  inclividiuil  soul  to  determine  and 
fulfil,  without  the  l)ias  of  State  solicitation  or 
constraint,  its    own  duty  to    God.      It   admits 

that  the  sphere  of  religion  transcends  its  con- 
trol, and  therefore  restricts  itself  to  the 
humbler  task  of  protecting  men  in  the  ex- 
ercise of  their  natural  rights. 

And  this  theory  of  the  proper  ends  of  civil 
government  seems  to  be  correct.  It  will  be 
found,  on  careful  reflection,  to  authorize  as 
wide  a  range  of  legislative,  judicial  and  ex- 
ecutive action,  as  consists  with  the  highest 
good   of  men. 

But  it  is  the  privilege  of  Christians  to  seek 
light  from  the  Word  of  God  in  respect  to  tlie 
ends  of  civil  government;  and  though,  as  in 
the  case  of  labor,  they  may  discover  less  than 
is  sometimes  anticipated,  their  search  will  not 
be  in  vain.  For  there  is  at  least  one  passage 
in  the  New  Testament  which  treats  expressly, 
if  not  fully,  the  point   now  in   question — tbe 


26  RELIGION  AND   THE  STATE. 

well-known  and  oft-examined  passage  in  the 
Apostle's  comprehensive  letter  to  the  Romans. 
In  the  translation  of  Dean  Alford,  it  reads  as 
follows : 

"Let  every  soul  submit  himself  to  the  au- 
thorities that  are  above  him:  for  there  is  no 
authority  except  from  God:  those  that  be,  have 
been  ordained  by  God.  So  that  he  which  set- 
teth  himself  against  the  authority,  resisteth  the 
ordinance  of  God;  and  they  that  resist  shall 
receive  to  themselves  condemnation.  For  rul- 
ers are  not  a  terror  to  the  good  work,  but  to 
the  evil.  Dost  thou  desire  not  to  be  afraid  of 
the  authority?  Do  that  which  is  good,  and 
thou  shalt  have  praise  from  the  same ;  for  he 
is  God's  minister  unto  thee  for  jrood.  But  if 
thou  do  that  which  is  evil,  be  afraid;  for  he 
weareth  not  the  sword  in  vain:  for  he  is  God's 
minister,  an  avenger  for  wrath  unto*  him  that 
doeth  evil.  Wherefore  ye  must  needs  submit 
yourselves,  not  only  because  of  the  wrath,  l)ut 


THE  STATE.  27 


also  for  your  conscience  sake.  For  this  cause 
ye  also  pay  tribute;  for  they  are  ministers  of 
God,  attending  continually  to  this  very  thing. 
Kender  to  all  their  dues:  tribute  to  whom 
tribute  is  due;  custom  to  whom  custom;  fear 
to  w^hom  fear;  honor  to  whom  honor.'* 

This  welcome  paragraph  furnishes  inspired 
testimony  to  several  important  facts,  e.  g.: 
that  civil  government  has  been  ordained  l)y 
God;  that  its  proper  ends  are  the  prevention 
or  punishment  of  evil  deeds  and  the  praise  of 
right  conduct,  that  it  should  be  obeyed  and 
supported  in  and  for  the  discharge  of  its  duty, 
and  that  resistance  to  it  (when  m^t  recreant  to 
its  appointed  ministry)  is  a  sin  against  God. 
But  a  closer  scrutiny  of  the  Apostle's  language 
will  reveal  another  fact,  to  wit:  that  it  docs 
not  limit  or  define  the  sphere  of  the  State's  ^ 
activity.  It  does  not  tell  us  whether  the  civil 
authorities  should  confine  their  efforts  to  re- 
pressin2^  those    evil  works   which  infringe  on 


28  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

the  natural  rights  of  man,  and  to  honoring, 
either  directly  or  indirectly,  those  which  do 
not,  or  whether  they  should  extend  their  sway 
over  the  entire  life  of  man,  seeking  to  put 
down  everything  which  they  regard  as  evil, 
and  to  exalt  everything  which  they  esteem 
good.  And,  especially,  it  does  not  inform 
us  whether  the  province  of  religion  is,  or  is 
not,  under  the  supervision  and  control  of 
earthly  magistrates. 

But  other  portions  of  the  Sacred  Record  do 
something  to  supply  what  is  wanting  in  this, 
by  virtually  limiting  the  functions  of  civil 
government  to  the  interests  of  time. 

This  is  done,  in  the  first  place,  by  showing 
that  other  and  ample  provision  has  been  made 
for  the  spiritual  welfare  of  men.  Attention 
w^as  called  to  this  on  a  former  page,  setting 
forth  the  nature  of  that  provision,  or  the 
kingdom  of  Christ  in  the  world;  and  the 
conclusion  there  reached  may  be  applied  here. 


THE  STATE. 


For  as  the  Saviour  has  established  a  dominion 
by  his  Spirit  and  word  over  the  souls  of  men, 
in  their  relations  to  God,  it  may  be  presumed 
that  *'thc  powers  that  be"  are  not  entitled  or 
qualified  to  rule  in  that  sphere. 

It  is  done,  in  the  second  place,  by  recog- 
nizing divine  law  as  more  sacred  than  human, 
and  authorizing  Christians  to  obey  the  former 
in  preference  to  the  latter.  This  is  altogether 
natural,  if  the  State  has  no  right  to  shape  the 
religious  belief  of  the  people  or  prescribe 
their  worship  of  God;  but  it  is  somewhat 
perplexing,  if  the  State  is  invested  by  the 
Most  High  with  a  right  to  do  this  very  thing, 
and  is  but  discharging  its  duty  by  doing  it  as 
well  as  it  can. 

And  it  is  done,  in  the  third  place,  by  rec- 
ognizing the  fact  that  the  soul  can  only  be 
judged  and  punished  by  God.  Even  Paul  did 
not  rely  on  his  own  estimate  of  himself,  and 
John  more  than  intimates  that   the   condemna- 


30  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

tion  of  one's  own  conscience  must  bo  less 
searching  and  awful  than  that  of  Him  w^ho 
knoweth  all  things.  He  is  the  only  judge  of 
the  Spirit.  Fear  him  who  can  destroy  both 
soul  and  body  in  hell. 

Besides  the  words  found  in  the  thirteenth 
chapter  of  Romans,  several  other  expressions 
deserve  a  moment's  attention.  Peter  exhorts 
the  readers  of  his  first  Epistle,  saying: 

* 'Submit  yourselves  to  every  ordinance  of 
man,  for  the  Lord's  sake;  whether  it  be  to 
the  king  as  supreme;  or  unto  governors,  as 
unto  them  that  are  sent  hy  him  for  vengeance 
on  evil  doers,  and  praise  of  them  that  do 
well;"  and  this  language  is  really  equivalent 
to  that  of  Paul,  though  showing  more  definitely 
the  human  orio:in  of  civil  srovernment,  as  well 
as  its  divine  sanction.  With  these  controllins: 
passages  may  be  compared  Titus  iii.  1: 

''Put  them  in  mind  to  submit  themselves 
to  governments,  to  authorities,  to   obey  magis- 


THE    STATE. 


trates,  to  be  ready  to  every  good  work." 
Obedience  to  civil  rulers  is  a  duty  of  Chris- 
tians^ But  the  functions  of  civil  rulers  are 
not  universal ;  for  Christ  said  to  the  Pliarisees 
and  Herodians : 

"Render  therefore  to  Caesar  the  thing's  that 
are  Caesar's;  and  unto  God  the  things  that  arc 
God's";  signifying,  plainly,  that  there  is  a 
iDarked  difference  between  the  duties  of  men 
to  civil  rulers,  and  their  duties  to  the  Divine 
Being.  Moreover,  in  case  of  conflict  duties  of 
direct  service  to  God,  duties  pertaining  to  his 
spiritual  kingdom  take  precedence  of  duties  to 
human  government.  This  appears  from  the 
words  of  Peter  and  John:  "Whether  it  is 
right,  in  the  sight  of  God,  to  hearken  unto 
you  more  than  unto  God,  judge  ye.  For  we 
cannot  but  speak  the  things  w^hich  we  sdw 
and  heard." 

Again,   Peter  and  the  apostles   said  to  the 


32  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

Jewish  Sanhedrim:  *'It  is  right  to  obe}' God 
rather  than  men."  But  there  is  no  need  of  con- 
flict, if  each  remain  within   its  proper    sphere. 

While,  then,  the  New  Testament  does  not, 
for  obvious  reasons,  prescribe  to  the  State,  in 
so  many  words,  the  proper  sphere  and  limits 
of  its  action,  it  does  intrust  to  the  individual 
conscience  the  responsibility  of  acting  for  itself 
in  matters  of  religion;  it  does  make  it  the  duty 
of  Christian  men  to  obey  the  commands  of  their 
spiritual  Head,  though  forbidden  so  to  do  by 
earthly  magistrates;  and  it  does  i)rovide,  with- 
out the  agency  of  the  State,  for  the  spread 
of  the  gospel  and  the  orderly  existence  of 
churches— for  regular  contributions  to  the 
poor,  and  every  good  work  suggested  by  in- 
telligent love. 

In  view  of  these  facts,  it  is  safe  to  affirm 
that  the  New  Testament  teaches  nothing  in- 
compatible with  the  hypothesis  that  the  single 


THE    STATE.  33 


and  great  end  of  human  government  should 
be  the  protection  of  men  in  the  exercise  of 
their  natural  rights,  and  the  encouragement 
thereby  of  all  good  conduct  in  earthly  affairs. 
Nay,  more  than  this,  it  may  be  asserted,  with- 
out fear,  that  questions  of  religious  duty  are 
fairly  above  the  reach  of  State  control,  and 
should  be  left  to  God  and  his  providence — to 
the  Saviour  and  his  people — to  the  power  of 
truth  and  love-,  acting  upon  the  untrammeled 
conscience.  But  whatever  may  be  necessary 
to  reach  the  great  end  of  the  State — whatever 
provision  may  be  requisite,  whether  by  the 
taxation  or  the  instruction  of  the  people,  for 
its  own  support — it  may  rightly  enforce;  for 
as  the  means  to  an  important  end  the  State  is 
sacred. 

The  view  which  has  been  given  of  the  State 
will,  it  is  hoped,  commend  itself  to  the  great 
body  of  Protestant  Christians  in  our  land — and 


34  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

especially  to  Baptists,  who,  as  a  denomination, 
have  taken  a  prominent  part  in  the  assertion 
of  personal  religious  liberty  and  responsibility. 
For,  if  correct,  it  will  not  only  simplify  the 
work  to  be  done  in  the  remaining  sections  of 
this  discussion,  but  will  be  at  the  same  time 
an  index,  pointing  out  the  direct  way  to  truth 
and  duty,  in  many  instances,  at  least. 


PROTECTION   OF  LIFE   BY   TEE   STATE. 

An  attempt  has  been  made  in  the  previous 
discussion  to  set  forth  the  true  nature  and 
ends,  first,  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  on  earth; 
and  next,  of  the  State  or  civil  authority.  The 
former  was  found  to  be  spiritual,  seeking  by 
the  agency  of  divine  grace  and  truth  to  bring 
men  into  right  spiritual  relations  to  God  and 
one  another,  and  to  prepare  them  thereby  for 
eternal  life ;  the  latter  was  found  to  be  secular, 
seeking  to  protect  men  in  the  exercise  of  their 
natural  rights — namely,  those  pertaining  to  life, 
liberty,  and  property — by  awarding  just  punish- 
ment to  all  who  trample  on  these  rights,  and 
consequent  honor  to  all  who  respect  them.  But 
the   reader  will,  of   course,    say:    This  is   not 


36  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

enough;  a  theory  is  one  thing,  the  application 
of  it  is  another:  the  former  may  seem  plausible, 
or  even  beautiful;  yet  the  latter  may  prove  it 
worthless.  And  this  remark,  resting,  as  it 
may,  on  broad  foundations  of  experience  and 
history,  is  altogether  reasonable.  Yet  it  must 
be  conceded  that  the  task  of  illustrating  satis- 
factorily the  views  of  Church  and  State  which 
have  been  presented,  will  be  difficult  on  two 
accounts;  first,  because  there  is  no  people  which 
has  fully  and  consistently  applied  them,  and 
secondly,  because  the  points  of  junction  and 
seemingly  profitable  alliance  between  Church 
and  State  are  very  numerous.  Nevertheless, 
the  difficulty  of  the  task  is  no  sufficient  reason 
for  declining  to  attempt  its  performance  in  the 
best  manner  possible. 

Among  the  natural  rights  of  man  is  that  of 
life;  and,  therefore,  life  must  be  protected  by 
the  State.  If  it  fails  of  doing  this,  it  fails  of 
accomplishing  one  of  the  chief  objects  for  which 


PROTECTION  OF   LIFE  BY  THE  STATE.         37 

it  exists.  Yet  tliis  protection  is  due,  not  to 
Christians  as  such,  nor  to  the  supporters  of 
any  sect  or  religion,  but  to  all  the  people  who 
have  not  forfeited  it  by  crime.  The  qualifica- 
tion made  in  the  last  clause  is  necessary,  be- 
cause there  are  crimes  of  which  the  just  pun- 
ishment is  death — whether  this  punishment  be 
inflicted  as  simple  retribution,  or  as  putting 
the  culprit  where  he  can  never  take  the  lives 
of  other  men,  or  as  a  warning  to  evil-doers, 
and  so  a  preventive  of  crime  in  the  future. 

But  if  this  may  be  done  by  way  of  preven- 
tion, it  follows  that  the  State  has  a  clear  and 
full  right  to  prohibit  the  sale  of  any  article 
for  uses  that  needlessly  imperil  life.  On  this 
principle,  the  vending  of  poisonous  drugs  or 
inebriating  liquors  may  be  restricted,  and  the 
only  questions  to  be  answered  before  doing  it 
are  these:  first.  Is  the  danger  to  life  so  mani- 
fest and  great  as  to  call  for  the  intervention  of 
the   civil   power?   and   secondly,   Is   the  civil 


RELIGION  AND   THE   STATE. 


power  fible  to  make  its  restriction  or  prohibi- 
tion respected  ?  If  these  two  questions  can  be 
answered  in  the  affirmative,  the  case  is  one 
that  requires  governmental  treatment;  but  if 
the  answer  to  either  is  really  doubtful,  the 
danger  should  be  met  as  well  as  possible  by 
social  and  moral  influences.  Other  rights  of 
man,  as  those  of  liberty  and  property,  may  also 
be  endangered  by  the  sale  of  such  articles  as 
have  been  referred  to,  but  the  duty  of  protec- 
tion from  the  State  to  these  other  rights  will 
be  examined  hereafter. 

On  the  principle  of  affording  reasonable  pro- 
tection to  the  lives  of  the  people,  the  State 
may  restrict  the  practice  (»f  medicine,  as  a 
profession,  to  persons  who  have  been  properly 
educated;  and  this  has  been  done,  it  is  said  with 
good  results,  in  several  countries.  Whether 
any  restriction  of  the  kind  is  necessary  in  our 
own  land  is  not  within  the  province  of  this 
discussion  to  affirm  or  deny;    but  it  is  impor- 


PROTECTION  OF  LIFE  BY  THE  STATE.         89 

tant  to  show  in  a  word  the  vast  range  of  civil 
action  upon  the  interests  of  man,  even  when 
that  action  is  limited  to  the  protection  of  nat- 
ural rio'hts. 

It  has  already  been  remarked  that  the  State 
should  protect  with  equal  care  the  lives  of  all 
the  people.  Hence  there  should  be  no  "ben- 
efit of  the  clergy."  The  ministers  of  religion 
should  be  tried  for  crime  before  the  secular 
judges,  and  no  ecclesiastical  court  should  be 
allowed  to  usurp  the  functions  of  the  State 
and  punish  with  the  sword;  for  by  so  doing 
it  would,  to  that  extent,  annul  an  ordinance 
of  God.  To  shield  the  lives  of  the  clergy  by 
special  means  is  also  a  wrong  to  religion  itself, 
putting  its  friends  at  a  great  moral  disadvan- 
tage in  the  end.  For  every  privilege  of  the 
kind  is  a  reproach  to  those  who  are  presumed  to 
need  it.  The  history  of  our  own  government 
has  demonstrated  the  wisdom  of  protecting  the 
lives  of  all    the  people  by  the  same  laws  and 


40  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

courts.  Christians  and  infidels  of  every  name 
should  be  treated  alike  in  this  respect;  nor 
will  it  be  denied  by  American  Protestants  that, 
so  far  as  life  is  concerned,  the  duty  of  the  State 
is  protection  and  nothing  more. 

It  is  also  worthy  of  remark,  that  civil  gov- 
ernment may  be  called  to  protect  the  lives  of 
the  people  against  the  violence  of  religious 
fanaticism.  For,  according  to  the  view  ad- 
vocated in  these  pages,  it  is  not  only  wrong 
for  the  State  to  punish  with  the  sword  any 
sjoiritual  offence,  as  heresy,  though  urged  to 
do  so  by  the  largest  body  of  Nominal  Chris- 
tians in  the  world,  but  it  is  equally  wrong  for 
it  to  suffer  any  religious  body  to  inflict  such 
punishment. 

Spiritual  lire  belongs  to  a  higher  realm  than 
natural  life,  and  must  be  defended  by  other 
weapons  than  the  sword.  Heresy  is  to  be 
refuted,  not  punished,  by  man;  it  is  to  be 
overcome  by  truth,   not   burnt   at   the   stake. 


PROTECTION   OF  LIFE  BY  THE  STATE!.        41 

Few  pages  of  history  awaken  feelings  of  deeper 
sadness  than  those  which  record  the  union  of 
civil  power  with  religious  higotry,  and  the 
results  of  that  union  in  times  of  persecution. 
For  the  State  to  lend  its  arm  to  the  Church, 
and  at  her  suggestion  destroy  life  instead  of 
protecting  it,  is  for  it  to  mistake  utterly  thc^ 
ends  of  its  existence,  and  usurp  in  turn  the 
functions  of  a  higher  power.  The  doctrine  of 
**the  two  swords"  in  the  hands  of  the  Pope 
has  led  to  unutterable  horrors. 

But  all  this,  it  may  be  said,  is  very  remote 
from  the  points  now  in  debate;  for' the  world 
has  advanced  beyond  the  age  of  unrelenting  per- 
secution, and  it  is  vain  to  look  foi-  any  traces  of 
resemblance  between  the  former  union  of  Church 
and  State  and  their  present  cooperation.  The 
reply  is  not  just;  for  the  two  swords  are  still 
united  in  many  countries  of  Europe,  and  a 
large  part  of  the  religious  writers  of  Germany, 
4:he  enlightened,  still  believe  that  reli^^ion  would 


42  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

receive  a  fearful  blow  in  the  severing  of  her 
ministry  from  the  supervision  and  support  of 
the  State. 

And  it  is  well  known  how  tenaciously  a  great 
and  growing  body  of  Christians  in  our  land 
clings  to  the  doctrine  that  the  State  should  help 
the  Church  and  obey  her  sovereign  behests. 
Happy  will  it  be  for  this  people,  if  just  and 
well-defined  views  of  the  work  and  power  and 
method  of  true  religion,  as  distinguished  from 
those  of  human  government,  are  so  fixed  in  the 
minds  of  Protestants,  that  they  will  detect  at 
once  an  attempt  of  either  to  do  the  work  of 
the  other.  For  the  State  is  not  charged  with 
the  duty  of  teaching  religion,  nor  the  church 
with  the  duty  of  administering  civil  law. 

Besides,  it  must  not  be  forgotten  that  in  one 
part  of  our  land  the  civil  and  religious  author- 
ity is  united  in  a  single  person,  and  the  former 
made  to  rest  practically  on  the  latter.  Church 
and  State  have  been   identified   in  Utah,  and  it 


PROTECTIOX  OF  LIFE  BY  THE  STATE.  43 

is  believed  by  many  that  for  years  the  life  of  a 
Gentile  was  worth  scarcely  a  straw  in  Salt 
Lake  City.  It  may  be  impossible  for  any  man 
to  say  whether  this  belief  is  correct  or  errone- 
ous, but  it  should  not  be  impossible.  For  it  is 
a  duty ''of  the  powers  that  be"  to  look  after 
the  people,  for  the  purpose  of  protecting  them 
from  violence  in  the  exercise  of  their  natural 
rights ;  and  if  Utah  has  been  from  the  first  a 
part  of  the  domain  of  the  United  States,  and 
subject  to  her  authority,  the  General  Govern- 
ment has  been  under  obligation  to  see  that  life 
was  protected  there,  to  see  that  the  natural 
rights  of  men,  as  recognized  by  the  Constitu- 
tion and  laws  of  the  land,  were  respected  among 
the  Mormons.  Wherever  there  is  good  reason 
to  suspect  violence,  there  the  State  should  make 
its  presence  felt  and  its  voice  heard ;  otherwise 
it  fails,  in  some  measure,  of  accomplishing  the 
great  end  for  which  it  has  been  ordained  of 
God. 


44  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

And  on  the  same  principle,  if  there  were 
reason  to  believe  that  persons  are  confined  in 
religious  houses  of  any  kind,  against  their  will 
and  to  thu  peril  of  their  lives,  it  would  be  no 
trespass  upon  the  domain  of  religion  for  the 
civil  power  to  make  thorough  search  and  as- 
sure itself  of  the  truth;  for  it  is  one  of  the 
functions  of  that  power  to  protect  the  lives  of 
all  the  people.  With  that  duty  it  is  entrusted 
by  the  Most  High,  and  it  has  no  right  to  trans- 
fer it  to  any  religious  body ;  the  act  would  be 
suicidal ;  nor  has  it  any  right  to  be  partial  in  the 
discharge  of  it.  The  law  and  the  magistrate 
should  know  the  people  as  men,  not  as  Mor- 
mons or  Papists,  Presbyterians  or  Methodists. 

This  view  of  the  case  is  of  comparatively  mod- 
ern origin,  and  it  can  boast  of  comparatively 
few  advocates.  Indeed,  there  is  no  nation 
which  has  adopted  it  fully,  and  applied  it 
consistently.  But  the  farther  any  people  has 
advanced  towards  a  fair   application  of  it,  the 


PROTECTION   OF  LIFE  BY  THE  STATE.         45 

more  has  that  people  foiuid  itself  resting  on 
sound  principles,  and  doing  the  things  that 
make  for  peace,  while  the  true  relation  be- 
tween Church  and  State  has  become,  in  the 
same  degree,  more  evident  to  the  common 
mind.  If  there  is  still  darkness  or  doubt 
among  the  people,  it  is  because  the  view  has 
been  applied  but  in  part,  and  often  capri- 
ciously, as  if  indeed  for  the  sake  of  producing 
confusion. 

It  has  been  advocated  by  the  feeble,  the 
despised,  the  persecuted 5  and  ignored  by  the 
strong,  the  popular,  the  favored.  Few  men 
search  out  the  injustice,  or  even  the  impolicy 
of  legislation  which  favors  their  cause.  And 
it  can  hardly  surprise  any  one  who  knows  the 
weakness  of  human  nature,  if  men  who  have 
had  *'the  powers  that  be"  for  a  long  time 
against  them,  because  of  their  religious  faith, 
should  see  the  tables  turned  without  much 
regret,  and  find  a  sort  of  justice  in  having  the 


46  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

account   balanced   by   special    favor   to    them- 
selves. 

In  this  way  principle  has  been  silenced  by 
the  voice  of  expediency,  or  by  the  plea  that 
two  wrongs  make  one  right.  Yet  the  view 
which  is  defended  in  these  pages  has  been 
gaining  the  confidence  of  devout  Protestants 
for  a  considerable  period.  It  pours  a  flood 
of  light  into  the  darkness  which  has  broode(^ 
over  the  connection  between  State  and  Church, 
and  the  time  cannot  be  far  distant  when  it 
will  fill  the  whole  region  with  the  splendors 
of  noonday.  Or,  if  this  may  not  be  said,  by 
one  who  is  neither  a  prophet  nor  the  son  of  a 
prophet,  it  may  at  least  be  aflarmed  that  the 
only  way  of  disproving  it  will  be  to  give  the 
theory  a  fair  trial  in  actual  life.  Till  this 
has  been  done,  those  who  believe  it  correct, 
and  from  Gud,  will  never  cease  to  urge  it 
upon  the  attention  of  good  men. 


PROTECTION    OF  LIBERTY   BY   THE   STATE, 

Among  the  natural  rights  of  man,  liberty 
is  only  second  to  life:  first,  the  right  to  be — 
next  the  right  to  act;  first,  the  human  person- 
ality with  its  marvellous  powers;  next,  the  use 
and  development  of  those  powers.  For  as  the 
beins:  of  man  is  from  God,  and  is  therefore 
entitled  to  protection  from  violence,  so  too 
are  the  capacities  of  that  being  from  God,  and 
entitled  to  protection.  Not  the  least  admirable 
of  these  capacities  is  that  of  growth  under 
favorable  conditions,  e.g.,  the  growth  of  moral 
discrimination  and  power  of  choice;  indeed, 
of  every  faculty  which  gives  dignity  and  worth 
to  man.  But  the  primary  condition  of  normal 
development  in  a  moral  being  is  liberty  of  self- 


48  RELIGION  AND    THE    STATE. 

direction,  and  sense  cf  individual  responsibility. 
And  it  is  the  peculiar  merit  of  the  Protective 
theory  of  human  government  that  it  recognizes 
the  people — not  as  means  nor  as  minors,  but 
rather  as  men,  leaving  it  with  them  to  answer 
the  gravest  questions  of  life  before  God;  leav- 
ing it  with  them  in  a  great  measure  to  decide 
what  they  will  be  and  do,  though  without  vio- 
Ititins:  the  ri«:hts  of  one  another. 

It  is  a  peculiar  merit  of  this  theory,  that  it 
looks  upon  many  other  things,  besides  the 
State,  as  ordained  of  God,  e.g.,  the  family 
and  the  church,  and  therefore  does  not  under- 
take to  relieve  these  of  their  proper  w^ork. 
Yet,  with  all  the  modesty  which  distinguishes 
this  view  of  government,  w^itli  all  the  care 
which  it  uses  in  defining  its  own  sphere  and 
object,  with  all  the  respect  which  it  pays  to 
man,  to  conscience,  to  the  family,  and  to  tlio 
church,  it  will  be  manifest  in  the  sequel,  that 
it  reserves  to  itself  a  very  wide  and  rich  do- 


PROTECTION  OF  LIBERTY  BY  THE  STATE.     49 


main,  and  rules  with  potent  voice  over  a  large 
class  of  human  affairs. 

This  will  appear,  to  some  extent,  from  a 
study  of  what  is  involved  in  securing  to  the 
people  of  any  land  a  reasonable  degree  of 
liberty.  For  such  liberty  is  not  license.  It 
implies  no  right  to  injure  others;  it  conceals 
no  tendency  to  socialism;  it  bears  in  its  womb 
no  germ  of  anarchy. 

Order  and  justice  are  the  first  conditions  of 
its  existence.  Intelligence  and  virtue  do  more 
to  preserve  it  in  being  than  the  sword. 

In  the  complicated  relations  of  modern  life, 
where  the  action  of  one  man  is  knit  by  a  thou- 
sand secret  threads  to  that  of  another,  it  is  no 
lisfht  task  to  make  the  laws  so  few  and  clear 
and  all-embracing  as  to  protect  individual  free- 
dom and  preserve  social  order.  The  latter  may 
be  done  without  the  former,  but  the  former 
cannot  be  done  ^\ithout  the  latter.  If  the 
Stat^  were  its  own.  end,  if  order  were  the 
4 


60  RELIGION  AND   THE  STATE. 

only  good  to  be  sought,  it  would  perhaps  he 
a  less  difficult  task  to  ensure  it;  for  the  heavy 
hand  of  force  might  crush  lawlessness  and  man- 
hood at  a  single  blow.  But  to  give  generous 
scope  for  the  exercise  of  personal  freedom,  and 
for  the  building  up  of  vigorous  manhood  in  the 
masses,  by  keeping  the  action  of  the  State 
within  proper  limits,  is  quite  another  affair, 
demand  ins:  a  hisfh  decfree  of  firmness  and  wis- 
dom.  Yet  the  end  justifies  the  means;  the 
result  compensates  a  hundredfold  f(jr  the  labor. 

It  would  require  a  much  wider  survey  of 
natural  life  than  comports  with  the  object  of 
this  discussion,  to  illustrate  fully  the  truth  of 
these  statements;  but  the  reader,  it  is  thought, 
will  have  no  reason,  from  his  knowledge  of 
facts,  to  call  them  in  question,  and  will  there- 
fore prefer  to  pass  on  at  once  to  the  chief  point 
in  debate. 

In  the  great  natural  right  to  liberty  of  action 
is  included   that  of  public  worship,   provided 


PROTECTIOX  OF  LIBERTY  BY  THE   STATE.     51  '^ 


the  same  is  peaceable  and  orderly.  This,  in- 
deed, is  the  highest  exercise  of  true  liberty. 
Without  it  freedom  is  only  a  name,  or  rather, 
it  is  a  misnomer.  If  men  may  not  obey  their 
religious  convictions  in  the  worship  of  God, 
if  the  highest  mandates  of  conscience  may  not 
be  expressed  in  action  :vhich  does  no  violence 
to  the  rights  of  other  men,  it  is  useless  to  speak 
of  liberty,  for  it  does  not  exist. 

When,  therefore,  Christians  of  any  name  ask 
for  protection  in  public  worship,  they  seek  for 
no  special  favor  or  distinction,  but  only  for 
that  which  the  State  owes  to  all,  whether  Prot- 
estant or  Papist,  Jew  or  heathen.  For  all  men 
are  entitled  to  pay  their  homage  without  an- 
noj'ance,  in  public  or  in  private,  to  whatever 
being  they  please.  In  fact,  every  assembly  of 
the  people,  called  together  for  a  purpose  not 
criminal  or  seditious,  must  be  protected  from 
disturbance. 

A  company  of  atheists,  whether  scientific  or 


52  RELIGION  AND   THE  STATE. 

philosophical,  has,  in  the  eye  of  civil  authority, 
the  same  right  to  meet  and  proclaim  unbelief, 
as  any  body  of  Christians  has  to  meet  for  the 
service  of  God.  For  the  State  is  not  charged 
with  the  duty  of  ascertaining  the  true  faith 
and  supporting  it,  but  with  the  duty  of  assert- 
ing the  equal  freedom  of  all  men  to  think  and 
act  for  themselves  in  matters  of  religion  while 
they  pay  due  respect  to  the  rights  of  one 
another. 

It  is  a  sad  confession  of  weakness  for  any 
body  of  Christians  to  seek  aid  from  the  civil 
authorities  in  maintaining  religion.  It  is  a 
reproach  to  the  Snviour,  and  to  the  agencies 
provided  by  him,  when  men  call  for  the  sword 
to  turn  the  crowd  in  his  favor.  Let  the  friends 
of  Christ  be  protected  like  other  men  in  their 
natural  rights,  and  trust  to  his  grace  and  truth 
for  the  rest !  Then  will  they  never  be  put  to 
shame. 

Must,  then,  the  idol  worship  of  the  Chinese, 


PROTECTION  OF  LIBERTY  BY  THE  STATE.     53 

who  swarm  the  Pacific  coast,  be  protected  by 
all  the  power  of  the  State?  Uudoubteclly  it 
must,  according  to  the  view  of  civil  govern- 
ment maintained  in  these  pages;  or,  rather, 
the  liberty  of  the  Chinese  to  worship  thus  must 
be  defended,  unless  their  worship  can  be  shown 
to  violate  the  natural  rights  of  other  men. 

The  language  of  Roger  Williams  is  not  too 
strong:  "It  is  the  will  and  command  of  God, 
that  a  permission  of  the  most  Paganish,  Jewish, 
Turkish,  or  Anti-Christian  consciences  and  wor- 
ships be  granted  to  all  men  in  all  nations  and 
countries."  ("Bloudy  Tenent,"  etc.,  p.  38. 
See  Vol.  lY.  Publications  of  the  Narragansett 
Club.) 

But  does  not  the  State  endorse  the  action 
when  it  protects  the  actor  ?  By  no  means :  it 
simply  performs  its  own  duty  in  conserving 
the  freedom  of  the  people,  leaving  at  the  same 
time  with  every  one  of  them  the  responsibility 
of  his  own  conduct  towards  God. 


54  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

There  is  no  better  reason  for  holding  the 
State  to  be  implicated  in  the  guilt  of  an  idol- 
ater, whose  liberty  it  guards,  than  there  is  to 
believe  it  a  sharer  in  the  grace  of  a  Christian, 
whose  freedom  to  worship  God  it  vindicates. 
Indeed,  a  course  of  argument  that  would  make 
earthly  rulers  accountable  for  the  abus^i  of  the 
religious  liberty  which  they  assure  to  the  peo- 
ple, would  make  the  Creator  and  Redeemer  of 
men  responsible  for  the  abuse  of  their  moral 
freedom.  A  proper  consideration  of  this  fact 
would  relieve  the  consciences  of  many  w^ho 
seem  to  have  a  sort  of  confused  notion  that 
"the  powers  that  be"  have  some  control  over 
the  religious  belief  and  conduct  of  their  sub- 
jects. 

But  this  is  not  all.  The  view  of  civil  gov- 
ernment as  an  ordinance  of  God  for  the  pro- 
tection of  men  in  the  exercise  of  their  natural 
rights,  is  the  only  one  that  will  justify  Chris- 
tians   in    claiming   protection   from   the  State 


PROTECTION  OF  LIBERTY  BY  THE  STATE.     55 

while  they  preach  the  gospel  in  heathen  lands. 
For  clearly  it  is  absurd  to  ask  the  rulers  of  a 
heathen  nation  to  concede  to  missionaries  their 
right  to  teach  freely  a  religion  which  those 
rulers  and  their  people  believe  to  be  false, 
while  the  magistrates  of  a  Christian  nation 
refuse  the  same  liberty,  as  a  right,  to  emissa- 
ries and  teachers  of  idolatry' . 

To  say  that  the  Christian  religion  is  true, 
and  idolatry  false,  is  no  reply  to  this;  for  if 
it  belongs  to  the  rulers  of  one  nation  to  decide 
for  the  people  what  is  the  true  religion,  it  be- 
longs to  the  rulers  of  every  other  to  do  the 
same,  and  it  is  impossible  to  deny  that,  if  they 
decide  the  matter  at  all,  they  must  decide  it 
honestly,  that  is,  according  to  their  belief. 
And  so,  acting  by  the  light  which  he  has,  the 
Emperor  of  China  would  proclaim  Buddhism  or 
Confucianism  to  be  the  true  religion,  and  refuse 
lirotection  to  Christian  teachers;  the  Emperor 
of  Kussia  v\'ould   proclaim   the  Orthodox  faith 


66  RELIGION  AND   THE  STATE. 

of  the  Eastern  Churcb,  and  deny  protection 
to  Methodist  preachers;  the  King  of  Sweden 
would  endorse  the  Lutheran  creed  and  turn 
the  power  of  the  State  against  Baptists  living 
in  his  cities;  and  all  these  rulers  would  per- 
haps adopt  the  words  of  John  Cotton,  in  his 
letter  to  Richard  Salstonstall,  justifying  the 
cruel  punishment  of  Obadiah  Holmes  in  Bos- 
ton, saying,,  that  their  "toleration"  and  '*iii- 
dulgence"  could  not  be  extended  to  any  per- 
son acting  * 'against  the  order  and  government 
of  our  churches,  established  (we  know)  bj 
God's  law  and  (he  knoweth)  by  the  laws  of  the 
country." 

It  is  cause  for  amazement  that  any  thoughtful 
American  can  believe  that  the  State,  as  such, 
ought  to  patronize  Christianity  in  one  place, 
if  it  may  not  do  the  same  for  Buddhism  m 
another;  or,  in  other  language,  that  a  Christian 
ruler  is  ♦  authorized  to  obey  his  conscience, 
while  a  heathen  ruler  is  not.     Let  every  one 


PROTECTION   OF  LIBERTY  BY  THE  STATE.     57 

be  fully  persuaded  in  his  own  mind,  and  act 
accordingly,  is  the  lesson  of  an  Apostle  to  the 
early  Christians;  and  the  same  great  teacher 
inculcates  the  duty  of  respect  for  even  the 
scruples  of  a  weak  conscience. 

Either,  then,  Christians  have  no  right  to 
claim  protection  from  the  State  in  preaching 
the  gospel  to  the  heathen,  or  the  duty  of  tlie 
State  is  simply  to  protect  men  in  the  exercise 
of  their  natural  rights,  without  attempting  to 
act  for  or  against  any  form  of  religion.  That 
the  latter  view  is  correct,  the  writer  firmly 
believes;  and  believing  it  would  insist  upon 
religious  freedom  for  all — in  China  or  Sweden, 
as  well  as  in  the  United  States. 

But  though  human  government  has  no  con- 
trol over  religious  faith  or  worship,  it  is  bound 
to  conserve  with  sacred  fidelity  the  liberties  of 
the  people  against  all  persons  or  influences  that 
would  destroy  them;  and  therefore,  if  any  relig- 
ious sect  were  known  to  deprive  certain  mem- 


RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 


bers  of  their  personal  freedom,  it  would  be  the 
duty  of  the  State  to  restore  this  to  them.  If 
there  were  religious  houses  in  which  persons 
who  entered  them  freely,  perhaps  in  early  life, 
were  believed,  on  good  probable  evidence,  to 
be  kept  against  their  will,  the  State  would  be 
under  obligation  to  make  diligent  search,  as- 
certain, if  possi])le,  the  facts  of  the  case,  and 
prevent  the  use  of  any  physical  restraint, 
abridging  liberty.  By  so  doing  it  would  sim- 
ply accomplish  the  purpose  of  its  existence; 
by  refusing  to  do  this  it  would,  in  a  measure, 
forfeit  its  right  to  be.  For,  according  to  the 
view  laid  down  in  this  investigation,  the  sphere 
of  its  action  is  well-defined,  including  the  pro- 
tection of  personal  freedom,  the  limits  of  its 
service  clearly  established,  and  the  probability 
of  any  collision  with  any  proper  spiritual  au- 
thority infinitesimal. 

Indeed,  the  perfect  distinctness  with  which, 
on  this  theory,  the  ends  of  civil  government 


PROTECTIOX  OF  LIBERTY  BY  THE   STATE.      59 

can  be  expliiiacd,  and  the  ample  scope  ^vhich 
it  leaves  for  the  spiritual  reign  of  Christ  over  the 
minds,  consciences,  and  hearts  of  men,  are 
strouor  reasons  for  believing'  it  correct.  When 
truth  is  discovered,  it  is  commonly  found  to  be 
simple  and  harmonious.  When  the  various 
duties  and  relations  of  man  are  clearly  appre- 
hended they  will  bo  seen  to  be  self-consistent 
and  indubitable. 


THE   LORD'S  DAY. 

It  will  be  recollected  by  the  reader  that  his 
attention  was  first  called,  in  this  discussion,  to 
the  nature  and  ends  of  the  Kingdom  of  Christ 
on  earth.  This  was  done  because  these  are 
more  exactly  defined  by  the  Word  of  God 
than  the  nature  and  ends  of  the  State,  and 
may  therefore  be  expected  to  aid  one  in  as- 
certaining the  latter 

It  was  also  assumed  that  what  the  members 
of  the  Kincfdom  of  Christ  are  commanded  to 
do,  by  means  and  methods  distinctly  pre- 
scribed, it  can  hardly  be  the  duty  of  human 
rulers  to  attempt  by  other  means  and  methods, 
almost  certain  to  come  in  conflict  with  those 
prescribed.     And  the   more  carefully  this   as- 


THE   LORD'S   DAY.  61 


sumption  is  scrutinized,  the  more  evident  will 
its  truth  appear.  For  the  means  employed  by 
the  State  are,  as  a  whole,  heterogeneous  to 
those  employed  by  the  Kingdom  of  Christ, 
and  are  only  fitted  to  secure  results  on  a  lower 
plane. 

They  are  little  better  adapted  to  support  re- 
ligion itself,  in  the  proper  sense  of  the  word, 
than  bread  is  to  feed  the  mind  of  man.  They 
are  to  be  used  in  protecting  natural  rights, 
and  providing  a  suitable  field  for  higher  agen- 
cies; but  Christian  character  and  Christian 
truth,  the  Spirit  of  God  and  his  Word,  are 
the  only  powers  fitted  by  their  nature  to  pro- 
duce and  nourish  true  religion  in  the  soul. 

It  will  also  be  recollected  that,  in  the  last 
section,  reference  was  made  to  the  claim  which 
Christian  missionaries  have  upon  heathen  gov- 
ernments, for  protection  in  the  exercise  of 
their  natural  right  to  worship  God  and  preach 
the    gospel    in    public.       That    claim,    it   was 


RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 


shown,  can  only  be  vindicated  by  the  view  of 
civil  government  set  forth  in  these  pages. 
iVnd  now  it  may  be  added,  in  support  of  that 
claim,  that  it  is  embraced,  not  only  in  the 
great  natural  right  of  liberty,  but  also  im- 
plicitly, in  the  Great  Commission  of  our  Lord. 
For  the  command  to  "disciple  all  the  nations," 
or  "preach  the  gospel  to  every  creature,"  must 
be  held  by  the  Christian  church  to  be  in  har- 
mony with  the  normal  action  of  the  State,  since 
the  laws  of  Christ's  Kingdom  are,  surely,  ad- 
justed to  every  ordinance  of  God. 

The  Commission  which  Jesus  gave  to  his 
disciples,  making  it  the  duty  of  his  servants 
to  proselyte  everywhere  and  always  till  the  end 
come,  is  therefore  an  argument  of  tremendous 
force  for  our  view.  By  making  Evangelism  the 
law  of  Christian  enterprise  for  all  time,  it  has 
virtually  charged  the  civil  authorities  to  give 
religious  inquiry  free  scope,  protecting  even 
those  who  teach  what  is   believed  to  te  false; 


THE  LORD^S  DAY.  63 

for  pagan  rulers  believe  the  gospel  to  be  false. 
Freedom  to  make  proselytes,  ])y  the  use  of 
moral  suasion,  is  a  natural  right,  to  be  claimed 
everywhere. 

But  if  public  worship  is  to  be  protected  as 
a  natural  right,  the  question  of  times  and  sea- 
sons presents  itself  at  once  for  consideration. 
May  *'the  powers  that  be"  select  particular 
days  for  the  spiritual  service  of  God,  and  for- 
bid the  people  to  engage  in  secular  w^ork  on 
those  days?  Is  it  the  duty  of  our  rulers,  e.g., 
to  enjoin  the  observance  of  the  Lord's  Day? 
To  these  questions  the  answer  of  our  Puritan 
fathers  cannot  be  given.  For  their  theory  of 
government  identified  Church  and  State,  and 
they  addressed  themselves  with  steadfast  reso- 
lution to  the  task  of  reinforcing  ecclesiastical 
law  by  civil;  the  power  of  divine  grace  by  that 
of  the  sword. 

It  w^as  the  mistake  of  good  men,  but  it  was 
none  the  less   a  mistake,  and  few  at  the  pres- 


64  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 


ent  time  would  hesitate  to  confess  it.  Rulers 
may  be  Christian  men,  imcler  obligation  to 
keep  the  Lord's  Day,  and  to  use  their  per- 
sonal influence  to  have  others  do  the  same,  but 
they  have  no  right  to  employ  the  power  of  the 
State  in  constraining  the  people  to  do  this,  as 
a  religious  act.  Nay,  it  is  well  to  speak 
plainly  on  this  point,  and  aver,  that  by  so 
doing  they  would  perform,  like  Uzzah,  a  sacre- 
llgious  act,  usurping  the  functions  of  a  higher 
economy,  and  hindering  rather  than  helping 
the  cause  they  love. 

But  while  the  State  cannot  make  men  relig- 
ious in  heart,  or  in  life,  it  can  and  should  pro- 
tect them  in  being  so  of  their  own  accord;  and 
this  it  may  properly  do,  if  necessary,  by  for- 
biddino^  such  kinds  of  labor  and  recreation  on 
the  Lord's  Day  as  will  disturb  those  who  meet 
for  worship ;  and  the  larger  the  number  of  wor- 
shippers, as  compared  with  such  as  abstain 
from  the  public   service   of  God,  the   more  im- 


THE  LORD'S  DAT.  65 


portaiit  will  it  ])c  for  the  latter  to  forego  their 
customary  labors. 

The  right  to  worship  is  sacred;  the  attempt 
to  compel  worship  is  sacrilege.  Not  to  protect 
the  former  is  to  despise  the  personal  liberty  of 
the  people;  while  to  do  the  latter  is  to  trample 
on  that  liberty.  Or  to  look  at  the  question  a 
littlo  more  broadly,  it  may  be  said,  that  the 
Jews  and  Christians  (for  there  are  some)  who 
deem  it  their  duty  to  meet  for  worship  on 
Saturday,  are  entitled  to  the  same  protection 
as  those  who  meet  on  the  Lord's  Day.  For 
liberty  to  do  the  supposed  will  of  God  is  what 
the  State  is  authorized  to  guard;  and  indeed, 
to  guard  it  as  a  matter  of  natural  right,  inde- 
pendent of  the  particular  creed  of  the  subject. 
This  position  is  the  only  one  that  can  possibly  be 
defended  by  men  who  accept  the  American  doc- 
trine of  religious  freedom — a  doctrine  which  is 
apostolic  and  reasonable,  as  well  as  American. 

Still  another  question  may  be  raised  at  this 
5 


RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 


point,  namely:  Has  the  State  a  right,  on  other 
than  religious  grounds,  to  require  the  people  to 
rest  from  their  ordinary  vvoi'k  one  day  in  seven  ? 
If  it  were  clearly  proven,  that  the  l^odily 
and  mental  stamina  of  the  people,  and  so  their 
average  longevity,  are  dependent  on  their  giving 
one  day  in  the  week  to  such  rest,  it  would  per- 
haps be  competent  to  the  State,  being  charged 
with  the  protection  of  natural  life,  to  enforce 
it — on  the  same  principle  as  quarantine  and 
similar  laws  are  enforced,  with  a  view  to  pre- 
vent the  spread  of  contagious  diseases.  But 
even  then  it  might  bo  doubted  whether  the 
ample  and  exact  collation  of  facts,  affording  the 
needed  proof,  would  not,  if  laid  before  the  peo- 
ple, secure  the  chief  benefit  of  State  action, 
thus  saving  the  magistrates  great  care,  and 
leaving  the  people  more  freedom. 

The  multiplication  of  laAVS  should  be  avoided, 
as  far  as  possible.  Nothing  should  be  done  by 
the  State  which  can  be  safely  entrusted  to  the 


THE  LORD'S  DAY. 


spontaneous  action  of  the  people.  Foi*  to  say 
nothing  of  the  cost  attending  the  execution  of 
laws,  it  is  important  to  foster  in  all  minds  a 
sense  of  personal  responsibility — one  of  the 
highest  qualities  of  intelligent  manhood. 

Yet  the  importance  of  ascertaining  the  real 
effects  on  health,  longevity,  and  morals,  of  giv- 
ing one  day  in  seven  to  rest  from  secular 
labor,  cannot  be  too  strenuously  urged;  and  it 
is  the  writer's  belief  that  this  effect  is  such  as 
to  justify  the  State  in  requiring,  if  it  can  be 
secured  in  no  other  way,  a  cessation  of  such 
labor  one  day  every  week.  But  the  require^ 
ment  should  be  based  on  secular,  and  not  on 
religious  grounds;  and  these  grounds  should 
be  distinctly  specified   in  the  law. 

In  fixing,  however,  upon  the  particular  day 
of  the  week  which  should  be  set  apart  as  a 
period  of  rest  from  customary  labors,  proper 
respect  should  be  paid  to  the  religious  convic- 
tions of  the  people.     If  there  be  any  one  day, 


68  RELIGION  AND   THE   STATE. 

as  the  Christian  Sabbath,  on  which  the  people, 
or  a  majority  of  the  people,  will  fix  their  choice, 
because  of  their  religions  belief,  and  which 
will  be  kept  by  them,  withont  regard  to  the 
civil  law,  that  day  should  be  selected  by  the 
rulers  as  the  day  of  rest  for  all;  or,  if  not  for 
all,  for  those  at  least  who  do  not  religiously 
suspend  their  business  on  some  other  day  of 
the  week.  Men  are  to  be  protected  in  relig- 
ious worship ;  and  the  circumstance  that  a  ma- 
jority of  the  people  believe  it  their  duty  to 
worship  God  publicly  on  the  first  day  of  the 
week,  makes  it  wise  for  the  rulers  to  choose  that 
for  the  rest-day  of  the  masses.  Yet  if  one  day 
in  seven  is  all  that  can  properly  be  required  of 
the  people  for  rest,  and  if  some  of  them  look 
upon  keeping  the  last  day  of  the  week  as  a 
Ireligious  duty,  it  would  seem  that  they  ought 
to  be  allowed  the  privilege  of  secular  labor  on 
the  first  day  of  the  week,  provided  they  do  not 
thereby  disturb   the  worship  of  others.     The 


THE  LORD'S  DAY.  69 

present  laws  would,  in  this  view  of  the  case, 
need  but  little  change,  except  by  a  statement  of 
the  grounds  which  justify  civil  action  in  such 
a  matter. 

In  his  able  address  before  the  Evansrelical 
Alliance,  in  New  York,  Dr.  Mark  Hopkins 
maintained,  "that  the  human  constitution,  and 
the  constitution  of  society,  is  so  preconformed 
to  that  division  and  employment  of  time  which 
the  Sabbath  contemplates,  that  neither  the  end 
of  the  individual  nor  of  society  can  be  fully 
reached  except  through' '  the  same.  He  also 
said; 

**It  is  ascertained  by  adequate  induction, 
through  observations  and  experiments  care- 
fully made  and  long  continued,  that  both  men 
and  animals  will  have  better  health,  and  live 
longer,  w^ill  do  more  work,  and  do  it  better,  if 
they  rest  one  day  in  seven,  than  if  they  work 
continuously." 

And  finany  he  admitted,  "that  it  is  not  the 


70  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 


province  of  legislation  to  enforce  the  Fourth 
Commandment  in  its  Goclwarcl  aspect,  or  to  pro- 
mote religion  directly;  but  simply  to  protect 
men  in  their  rights  under  a  great  provision 
made  by  God  for  their  well-being." 

One  other  line  of  ar^fument  for  a  leijal  Sab- 
bath  has  been  taken  up,  namely,  this:  Every 
institution  of  God  has  a  right  to  use  the  means 
necessary  to  its  own  preservation  and  efficiency  : 
but  sound  morals  among  the  people  are  prereq- 
uisite to  good  government,  frequent  religious 
instruction  and  worship  are  necessary  to  such 
morals,  and  rest  from  secular  labor  one  day  in 
a  week  is  a  condition,  sine  qua  non,  of  this 
teaching  and  worship  :  hence  the  State  should 
enforce  the  observance  of  a  weekly  Sabbath. 
This  argument  is  specious,  but  liable  to  grave 
objections.  For  by  assuming  that  every  insti- 
tution of  God  must  }irovide  the  conditions  of 
its  own  existence,  it  assumes  that  the  institu- 
tions  of  God    form  a    system,    every    part   of 


THE  LORD'S  DAT.  71 

whi(?h  must  take  charge  of  every  other  part, 
instead  of  doing  simply  its  own  work,  and 
leaving  every  other  part  to  do  the  same,  as 
if  the  hand  must  not  only  perform  its  appro- 
priate service,  but  see  to  it  also  that  the 
brain  and  the  eye  are  in  health.  In  other 
words,  it  assumes  that  religion  is  dependent 
on  the  State  for  its  existence ;  that  the  servants 
of  Christ  will  keep  no  Sabbath,  and  have  no 
general  influence  on  the  character  of  the  people, 
without  the  direct  aid  of  civil  government  in 
their  v/ork,  an  assumption  which  is  utterly  false. 
For  how  did  the  Christian  religion  first 
make  its  way  in  the  world?  By  what  forces, 
now  lost,  did  it  preserve  its  existence,  insert 
itself  gradually  into  the  life  of  the  Roman  Em- 
pire, and,  without  the  patronage  of  the  State, 
purify  the  morals  and  ennoble  the  aims  of  the 
people?  And  how  will  it  maintain  its  footing 
on  heathen  shores,  where  "the  powers  that 
be"  will   assuredly  give   it   no  legal  Sabbath? 


72  RELIGIOX  AND  THE  STATE. 

The  reasoning  may  be  specious,  but  it  cannot 
])e  sound.  For  the  churches  of  Christ  will  go 
on  with  their  work,  honoring  his  name,  paying 
homage  to  his  law,  sanctifying  his  clay,  teach- 
ing his  truth,  and  bcMring  his  banner  in  tri- 
umph over  the  world,  even  though  the  State 
give  them  only  protection  in  worship.  Their 
power  over  morals  comes  from  a  higher  source 
than  the  sword.  The  springs  of  their  life  are 
in  God,  and  the  State  may  count  upon  all  the 
influence  which  they  can  wield  for  truth  and 
right,  without  money  and  without  price.  In- 
deed, *'the  powers  that  be"  will  best  assure 
their  own  existence  and  usefulness,  by  care- 
fully restricting  their  action  to  the  sphere 
assigned  them  by  the  Most  High,  and  not  oc- 
cupied by  another  and  competent  authority. 
When  they  overstep  their  proper  limits,  and 
attempt  to  do  the  w^ork  of  Christ  and  his  peo- 
ple, they  put  in  jeopardy  the  highest  interests 
of  man. 


THE   LORD'S   DAT.  73 

If  what  has  now  been  said  is  correct,  the 
Christian  servants  of  the  State  should  never 
he  required  to  perform  secular  work  on  the 
first  day  of  the  week,  unless  it  can  be  shown 
that  such  work  is  essential  to  the  existence  of 
the  State ;  and  this  can  rarely  be  done.  Accord- 
ingly, public  libraries  should  not  be  opened  on 
that  day,  nor  the  courts  be  in  session,  nor  any 
ordinary  business  l}e  transacted,  for  the  State 
cannot  do  its  work  in  a  Christian  land  by  cut- 
ting itself  off  from  the  service  of  Christians, 
or  by  violating  the  very  freedom  which  it  is  one 
of  its  duties  to  protect.* 

*  At  a  meeting  of  the  Baptist  ministers  of  Boston  and  ^'icin- 
ity,  held  in  the  social  hall,  Tremont  Temple,  the  following 
resolutions  were  unanimously  adopted  : 

The  ministers  of  this  conference,  believing  that  certain 
opinions  and  tendencies  of  the  present  hour  make  it  proper 
for  them  to  state  briefly,  but  formally,  their  reasons  for  urg- 
ing upon  the  people  the  duty  of  observing  the  Lord's  Day^ 
unite  in  the  following  declaration,  namely  :  We  are  convinced 

1.  That  at  the  origin  of  the  human  race  one  day  in  seven,  hallowed  by 
the  resting  of  God  from  the  work  of  creation,  was  set  apart  by  Him  for 
religious  worship  and  joj'  among  men,  with  rest  from  secular  labor; 

2.  That  the  duty  of  observing  this  weekly  Sabbath  was  solemnly  reim- 


RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 


It  is  of  course  iinderstoocl,  that  Christian 
magistrates  will  vindicate  their  own  liberty  of 
worship,  as  well  as  that  of  others,  giving  all 

posed  by  Jehovah  on  his  chosen  people,  and,  owing  to  its  fundamentally 
moral  character,  was  made  one  of  the  Ten  Commandments ; 

3.  That  our  Saviournot  only  kept  the  ^abbath  according  to  the  primi- 
tive law,  but  also  spoke  of  it  as  instituted  for  man's  sake  or  good,  adding 
that  He  Himself,  the  Son  of  Man,  was  Lord  of  the  Sabbath ; 

4.  That  both  the  resurrection  of  Christ  on  the  first  day  of  the  week  and 
the  example  of  the  Apostolic  churches  in  meeting  on  that  day  for  religious 
worship,  make  it  our  duty  and  privilege  to  honor  the  Lord's  Day,  instead 
of  Saturday,  by  devoting  it  to  Cluistian  work  and  joy ; 

5.  And,  finally,  that  the  history  of  Christian  nations  enjoins  upon  us  the 
same  great  duty  and  privilege,  by  showing  that  a  faithful  observance  of  the 
Lord's  Day  has  tended  to  the  physical,  mental,  and  moral  good  of  the  people., 

Y/e  are  also  convinced — 

1.  That,  for  sanitary  and  moral  reasons,  a  weekly  day  of  rest  from  secu- 
lar toil  should  be  required  by  the  laws  of  the  State ; 

2.  That,  in  a  land  where  most  of  the  people  recognize  the  authority  of 
Christ,  that  day  of  rest  should  be  the  Lord's  Day,  since  it  will  be  kept  by 
large  numbers  from  a  sense  of  religious  duty ; 

3.  That,  by  selecting  any  other  day,  the  Government  would  discriminate 
against  Christians,  who  are  bound  in  conscience  to  rest  on  the  Lord's  Day, 
and  who  could  not,  therefore,  hold  office  or  perform  service  for  the  State  if 
required  to  work  on  that  day. 

4.  That  by  opening  public  libraries  or  authorizing  any  form  of  public  ser- 
vice not  strictly  necessary,  the  civil  authorities  would  not  only  act  against 
the  judgment  and  conscience  of  a  great  part  of  the  citizens,  but  also  against 
the  general  current  of  legislation  in  all  our  history  as  a  people,  and  against 
the  recognition  of  Sunday  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  as  well 
as  by  those  of  nearly  all  the  separate  States. 

5.  That,  so  far  as  we  can  judge,  the  people  do  not  need  the  use  of  public 
libraries  on  the  Lord's  Day,  nor  do  they  desire  the  same  for  themselves. 

In  view  of  these  considerations,  we  earnestly  deprecate 
every  attempt  to  secularize  the  Lord's  Day,  and  call  upon  our 
fellow-Christians  to  use  their  influence  by  word  and  example 
to  avert  so  great  an  evil. 


THE  LORD'S  DAY.  75 

the  weight  of  their  personal  influence  to  the 
cause  of  the  Lord.  By  word  and  act  they  will 
hallow  his  day  and  honor  the  laws  of  his  king- 
dom, but  they  will  not  use  their  official  power 
to  constrain  men  to  engage  in  religious  wor- 
ship, or  even  to  cease  from  employments  which 
do  not  disturb  the  worship  of  others.  The 
zeal  with  which  they  serve  Christ  will  not  be 
diminished  by  the  circumstance  that  the  weap- 
ons they  must  use  are  not  carnal,  but  spiritual; 
and  while  they  see  that  their  service  as  magis- 
trates cannot  have  religion  for  its  direct  object, 
they  will  also  perceive  that  it  has  an  important 
relation  to  the  supreme  interest  of  man,  the 
renovation  of  his  soul,  l>y  preserving  order  and 
libeit}',  and  so  preparing  a  suitable  field  for 
the  conflict  of  truth  with  error,  of  grace  with 
sin. 

There  is  therefore  no  discord  between  their 
civil  and  their  religious  duties;  both  are  be- 
neficent, both  ordained  of  God;  but  the  former 


76  RELIGION  AND   THE  STATE. 

seek  to  gain  temporal  good  by  natural  means, 
while  the  latter  aim  to  secure  eternal  good  by 
spiritual  means. 

And  the  vast  personal  influence  of  Christian 
magistrates  ought  not  to  be  overlooked;  they 
fill  a  large  place  in  the  public  eye,  and  their 
example  may  reach  hearts  closed  to  every  other 
appeal.  But  in  our  own  land,  at  least,  the 
choice  of  the  people  will  determine,  in  a  great 
measure,  the  character  of  their  rulers.  If  they 
look  at  the  man  as  well  as  the  magistrate,  and 
have  respect  to  his  unofficial  conduct  as  well 
as  his  official;  if  they  bear  in  mind  that  the 
higher  one's  position  in  civil  life,  the  greater 
his  power  over  many  in  private  life,  they  will 
not  be  able  to  ignore  altogether  the  question 
of  religion  in  the  choice  of  rulers,  though  they 
deny  to  the  State  any  direct  control  or  patron- 
age of  the  Church. 

The  statutes  of  Massachusetts  forbid  the  peo- 
ple to  do   "any  manner  of  labor,  business  or 


THE  LORD'S  DAT.  77 

work,  except  works  of  necessity  and  charity," 
or  to  "be  present  at  any  dancing  or  public 
diversion,  show  or  entertainment,"  or  to  "take 
part  in  any  sport,  game  or  play,"  or  to  "travel, 
except  from  necessity  or  charity,"  on  the  Lord's 
Day ;  but  these  statutes  are  in  great  part  a  dead 
letter,  while  the  influence  of  Christian  magis- 
trates unites  itself  with  that  of  all  who  honor 
the  Saviour,  in  giving  to  the  Lord's  Day  the 
respect  which  it  now  has  (alas,  too  little!)  in 
the  old  Bay  State. 

The  following  clear  and  discriminating  words 
are  found  in  the  "Bloudy  Tenent"  of  Eoger 
Williams,  pp.  372,  373.  Publications  of  the  Nar- 
raganset  club,  Vol.  III.  "The  civil  magistrate 
either  respecteth  that  religion  and  worship 
which  his  conscience  is  persuaded  is  true,  and 
upon  which  he  ventures  his  soul,  or  else  that 
and  those  which  he  is  persuaded  are  false. 

"Concerning  the  first,  if  that  which  the  mag- 


78  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

istmte  believeth  to  be  true,  be  true,  I  say  he 
owes  a  threefold  duty  unto  it: 

First.  Approbation  and  countenance,  a  rev-, 
erent  esteem  and  honorable  testimony,  accord- 
ing to  Isaiah  xlix,  Revelation  xxi,  with  a  ten- 
der respect  of  truth  and  the  professors  of  it. 

Secondly.  Personal  submission  of  his  own 
soul  to  the  power  of  the  Lord  Jesus  in  that 
spiritual  government  and  kingdom,  according 
to  Matthew  xviii,  1  Cor.  v. 

Thirdly.  Protection  of  such  true  professors 
of  Christ,  whether  apart,  or  met  together,  as 
also  of  their  estates,  from  violence  and  injury, 
accordinof  to  Romans  xiii. 

Now  secondly;  if  it  be  a  false  religion  (unto 
which  the  civil  magistrate  dare  not  adjoin, 
yet)  he  owes: 

First.  Permission  (for  approbation  he  owes 
not  to  what  is  evil),  and  this  according  to  Mat- 
thew xiii.  30,  for  public  peace  and  quiet's 
sake. 


THE  LORD'S  DAT. 


Secondly.  He  owes  protection  to  the  persons 
of  his  subjects  (though  of  a  false  worship) 
that  no  injury  be  offered  either  to  the  persons 
or  goods  of  any.     Eomaus  xiii." 


THE   BIBLE   IN   SCHOOLS. 

■■i.-  ■ 

The  object  of  this  discussion  is  to  bring  the 
proper  relation  of  religion  to  the  State  before 
the  reader  in  as  clear  a  mnnner  as  possible; 
and  there  will,  it  is  thought,  be  no  fitter  place 
than  this  to  consider  the  difficult  question  of 
the  use  of  the  Bible  in  schools  supported  by 
the  State.  Grave  differences  of  opinion  on 
this  point  prevail  among  the  friends  of  educa- 
tion, and  it  is  not  easy  to  see  how  these  differ- 
ences are  to  be  reconciled.  For  it  is  urged, 
on  the  one  hand,  that  the  use  of  the  Bible  in 
schools  controlled  by  the  State  is  necessary 
to  good  government,  to  the  protection  of  life, 
liberty,  and  even  property,  and  therefore  prop- 
erty may  be  taken  for  the   support  of  schools 


THE  BIBLE  IN  SCHOOLS.  81 

where  the  Scriptures  are  read  and  taught.  Or, 
to  put  the  same  tliought  in  another  form,  the 
State  is  bound  hy  the  law  of  self-preservation 
to  provide  for  the  moral,  as  well  as  the  mental 
training  of  the  people;  but  moral  training  can 
only  be  made  effectual  by  connecting  it  with 
religion,  and  the  Bible  is  the  only  source  of  pure 
and  well-attested  religious  truth.  Besides,  it 
is  alleged  that  the  State  cannot  remove  the 
Bible  from  its  schools  without  removing,  on 
the  same  principle,  all  Christian  literature — 
and,  indeed,  in  the  last  instance,  all  books 
that  recoii:nize  the  beini::  of  God;  but  to  do 
this  would  be  to  discriminate  against  Christi- 
anity  in  favor  of  pure  deism — against  all  re- 
ligion in  favor  of  pure  naturalism—  a  discrimi- 
nation which  is  inconsistent  with  the  duty  of 
the  State  as  an  impartial  protector  of  liberty. 
And  so  the  protest  against  the  use  of  the  Bible 
in  schools  is  reduced,  it  is  said,  to  an  absurd- 
ity. But,  on  the  other  hand,  it  is  urged  with 
6 


RELIGION  AND   THE  STATE. 


equal  confidence  that  the  State,  haviiig  as  such 
no  control  over  spiritual  affairs,  should  not 
cast  its  influence  into  the  scale  in  favor  of  any 
particular  faith;  while  it  is  also  claimed,  with 
some  show  of  reason,  that  even  the  reading  of 
the  Scriptures  as  a  religious  book  (and  only  as 
such  a  book  would  Christians  be  willing  to 
have  their  children  read  them)  is  to  some  ex- 
tent an  endorsement  of  Christianity,  and  ought 
therefore  to  be  omitted.  Thus  there  are  si^rns 
of  a  serious  conflict  of  opinion,  and  in  our  own 
land,  as  well  as  in  England,  the  combatants  are 
already  in  the  dust  of  battle,  or  girding  on  their 
armor  for  the  strife. 

It  would  surely  be  presumptuous  for  the 
writer  to  expect  any  marked  success  in  dealing 
with  the  point  at  issue;  but  as  it  falls  within 
the  range  of  his  subject,  a  few  suggestions  must 
be  offered. 

And  it  is  certain  that  the  attempt  to  reduce 
the  argument  for  removing  the  Bible  from  pub- 


THE  BIBLE  IN  SCHOOLS.  83 

lie  schools  to  an  absurdity  is  not  sound ;  for  the 
Bible,  if  read  as  Christian  parents  would  have 
it  read  by  their  children — if  read  as  a  sacred 
book,  making  known  the  will  of  God  to  men, 
and  so  founding  morals  upon  religion — differs 
very  greatly  from  all  other  Christian  literature, 
and  must  be  classed  by  itself. 

The  protection  which  the  State  owes  to  lib- 
erty of  soul,  does  not  permit  it  to  favor  any 
one  sect  to  the  injury  of  another;  but  it  does 
justify  it  in  fostering  a  free  iuterchauge  of 
thous^ht — in  treatini^  men  as  intelhVent  social 
beings,  whose  views  in  respect  to  the  highest 
matters  will  pass  from  one  to  another,  and 
whose  education  for  life  will  consist,  partly 
at  least,  in  learning]:  to  distin2:uish  between 
truth  and  error. 

If,  then,  such  literature  only  is  used  in  the 
public  schools  as  depends  upon  its  harmony 
with  reason  and  its  power  to  convince  the 
understanding,  for   the    influence   which  it  has 


81  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

upon  men — the  interests  of  religious  freedom 
do  not  seem  to  be  prejudiced  in  the  least. 

But  the  employment  of  a  volume  which  is 
supposed  to  teach  with  al:)solute  authority,  and 
is  appealed  to  as  giving  religious  sanctions 
to  morality,  cannot  be  justified  on  the  same 
grounds;  and  it  would  not,  surely,  be  strange 
if  Jews  or  Chinese  should  object  to  such  a  use 
of  the  New  Testament,  by  authority  of  the 
State,  as  a  violation  of  their  religious  free- 
dom: nor  are  there,  so  far  as  now  appears, 
any  solid  reasons  why  the  State  should  over- 
rule their  objection. 

No  thoughtful  man  should  be  alarmed  at  this 
conclusion.  For  it  must  be  borne  in  mind, 
that  children  whose  parents  arc  unwilling  to 
have  them  read  the  Scriptures  will  not,  if  com- 
pelled to  read  them,  be  likely  to  do  it  with  a 
very  reverent  or  docile  spirit;  and  any  one 
who  has  much  observed  the  careless  and  per- 
functory manner  in   which    the  religious  exer- 


THE  BIBLE  LV  SCHOOLS.  85 

cises  of  many  public  schools  are  dispatched, 
especially  when  the  children  belong  for  the 
most  part  to  Catholic  families,  must  have  seri- 
ous doubts  whether  any  good  result  can  be 
expected  from  them. 

If  the  Christian  influence  of  a  teacher  besrins 
and  ends  with  the  formal  service,  it  is  worth- 
less; but  if  it  springs  from  heart  and  con- 
science, it  will  be  made  efiective  for  the  great- 
est good,  though  the  formal  exercise  be  omitted. 

The  religious  education  of  children  cannot 
be  entrusted  to  the  State.  It  must  be  left  in 
the  hands  of  parents,  friends.  Christians.  For 
unless  *'the  powers  that  be"  make  it  a  point  to 
select  none  but  earnest  Christians  to  teach  in 
the  public  schools,  there  will  be  many  schools 
in  charge  of  persons  who  have  no  interest  in 
the  Bible,  and  no  power  to  awaken  such  inter- 
est. Yet  who  would  go  so  far  toward  the 
union  of  Church  and  State,  as  to  have  the  latter 
sit  in  judgment  on  the  religious  character  of  a 


86  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

i;h44^  large  body  of  its  servants  ?     Most  certainly  the 

tt%t    result  of  such  inquisition  and  patronage  would, 

'  1  ^^rin  the  end,  be  evil  to  all  concerned. 

•"  But  these  remarks  do   not  apply  to   the  free 

^\^^y{jk     action  of  teachers  who  may  wish  to  read  the 

'  ttiAtC  Bible  and  pray  to  God  with  their  pupils ;    for 

Ml***4»  such  a  service,  voluntary,  brief,  and  approved 

jV^  by  the  parents,  might  be  quite  suitable.     Yet 

Jl^      in  strict  justice  the  State  cannot  tax  the  people 

for  the  support  of  religion,  and   therefore  the 

teachers  whom  it  employs  are  bound  to  give 

the  time,  for  which  they  are  paid,  to  the  work 

•    of  secular  instruction. 

If,  however,  they  are  pleased  to  add  a  quar- 
ter of  an  hour  to  that  time  daily,  inviting  the 
parents  to  send  their  children  to  a  voluntary 
service,  their  course  must  be  pronounced  un- 
objectionable, for  it  is  a  private  and  personal 
arrangement  between  teacher,  parents,  and  chil- 
dren, and  as  a  service  costing  eflfort  and  spring- 


THE  BIBLE  IN  SCHOOLS.  87 

ing  from  love,  it  would  bo  likely  to  prove 
earnest  and  fruitful  of  good. 

No  doubt  there  are  lions  in  the  way  of  such  a 
service,  difficulties  to  be  met  and  surmounted, 
but  this  is  true  of  all  religious  efforts  worth 
naming;  and  so  long  as  there  are  Christian 
hearts  in  the  world,  they  will  find  ways  to 
bring  the  gospel  to  children.  Let  us  have  no 
State  religion  in  schools ;  there  is  a  better  way. 

If  now  the  answer  comes  back :  Not  for  the 
sake  of  religion,  but  for  the  good  of  the  State; 
for  there  can  be  no  security  for  morals  but  in 
religion,  and  no  security  for  the  State  but  in 
morality,  the  reply  is  at  hand:  Eeligion  will 
prosper  and  do  its  work  for  good  morals,  with- 
out State  aid.  It  will  find  its  way  into  fami- 
lies, schools,  communities,  and  scatter  blessings 
by  its  own  agencies,  all  the  better  for  being  left 
to  itself.  Wlien  it  leans  on  the  sword,  it  is 
pierced;  when  it  rests  in  the  lap  of  the  State, 
it  is  shorn  of  its  locks.     Relisrion  is  from  above, 


88  RELIGION  AND    THE   STATE. 

and  it  lives  by  taking  hold  of  God ;  it  grows  hy 
self-denial  and  sacrifice.  The  State  need  not 
distrust  it,  provide  for  it,  nor  pamper  it ;  for 
Christianity  gains  most  when  it  gives  most,  and 
it  gives  most  when  it  sees  the  need  of  giving. 

Leaving  now  the  difficult  question  of  the 
Bible  in  public  schools,  it  may  be  well  to  ad- 
vert very  briefly  to  the  employment  of  chaplains 
by  the  State.  Is  it  right  for  the  people  to  be 
taxed  for  the  religious  instruction  of  its  rulers 
or  defenders?  Should  not  the  officers  of  gov- 
ernment, with  all  persons  belonging  to  the  army 
and  navy,  select  their  own  spiritual  guides,  and 
if  able,  support  them  as  well?  If  they  have  the 
same  religious  liberty  as  other  men,  why  should 
they  not  honor  it  in  the  same  way,  and  at  the 
same  cost? 

Why  should  persons  differing  from  them  in 
belief,  as  a  Jew  differs  from  a  Christian,  or  a 
Baptist  from  a  Papist,  be  compelled  to  support 
their  teachers  ?     But  if  men  in  the  civil  or  mil- 


THE  BIBLE  IN  SCHOOLS. 


itary  service  of  their  country  are  so  poorly  paid 
as  to  be  unable,  or  are  so  indifferent  to  God  as 
to  be  unwilling  to  reward  their  pastors  for  the 
service  rendered  by  the  latter,  why  should  not 
Episcopal  chaplains  be  sustained  by  members 
of  the  Episcopal  Church,  and  Baptist  chaplains 
by  churches  of  their  own  faith. 

K  liberty  of  conscience  is  not  a  fiction,  it  is 
manifestly  unjust  to  require  any  man  to  support 
religious  teaching  which  be  does  not  believe, 
and  thus  take  away  or  diminish  his  power  to 
support  the  teaching  which  he  does  believe. 
And  as  a  matter  of  fact,  this  is  done  without 
the  least  necessity.  For  there  is  no  reason 
whatever  to  doubt  that  any  Christian  denom- 
ination in  the  United  States  would  readily  un- 
dertake to  support  all  the  chaplains  selected 
from  its  ministry;  indeed,  there  are  large  bod- 
ies of  Christians  that  would  be  only  too  glad  to 
have  the  privilege  of  doing  their  part  in  such 
a  field  of  labor. 


90  RELIGION  AND   THE  STATE. 

The  history  of  the  Christian  Commission  and 
its  work  in  the  late  war,  furnishes  conclusive 
proof  that  army  chaplains,  paid  from  the  public 
treasury,  are  needless;  and  if  the  two  houses  of 
Congress,  and  the  Legislatures  of  the  several 
States,  were  ever  forced  to  go  beyond  their 
own  members  for  suitable  chaplains,  and  were 
disinclined  to  pay  for  their  services,  it  is  quite 
certain  that  such  service  would  be  rendered 
gratuitously,  by  any  denomination  from  which 
they  might  wish  to  receive  it.  The  same  may 
be  said  of  prison  chaplains ;  and  the  time  is  not 
far  distant,  it  may  be  hoped,  when  the  volun- 
tary system  which  has  been  so  successful  in  all 
its  working  hitherto,  exciting  amazement  in  the 
minds  of  educated  Christians  on  the  continent 
of  Europe,  will  be  thoroughly  and  consistently 
applied.    • 

Then  first  will  the  primitive  glory  of  the 
church  in  this  respect  be  restored.  If  the  only 
alternative  were   union  of  State  and  Church, 


THE  BIBLE  IN  SCHOOLS.  91 

eiich  shaping  the  other  to  the  best  form  for  or- 
ganic and  concentrated  action,  or  hostility  of 
State  to  Chnrch,  the  former  persecuting  and 
aiming  to  destroy  the  latter,  it  would  be  far 
wiser  for  the  servants  of  Christ  to  choose  hos- 
tility than  union;  but  no  such  alternative  is 
proposed  to  them  in  this  land;  they  have  no 
reason  to  think  that  *'the  powers  that  be" 
would  not  welcome  a  ''friendly  independence'' 
on  the  part  of  all  religious  bodies,  and  assure 
to  them  all  a  fair  field  of  action  for  the  defence 
and  propagation  of  what  each  believes  to  be  the 
truth  of  God.  And  this,  only  this,  a  friendly 
independence  of  State  and  Church,  each  doing 
its  appointed  work  in  its  own  way,  is  what 
these  pages  advocate  in  behalf  of  both. 

The   genius  of  Christian  liberty  and  reform 
has  been  feeling  after  this  blindly  in  every  age ; 
it  has  been  often  revealed  as  an  ideal  relation, 
devoutly  to  be  wished,  but  scarcely  to  be   ex- 
pected,   to   the    clarified    vision    of    oppressed 


92  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

saints ;  but  never  until  now  has  there  seemed 
to  be  any  considerable  ground  for  hope  that 
the  blessed  ideal  might  soon  become  a  fact. 
And  now  it  can  only  be  realized  by  apparent 
sacrifice  on  the  part  of  Christians ;  it  remains 
to  be  seen  whether  they  have  grace  to  provide 
for  the  future  by  relinquishing  a  seeming  good, 
in  the  present. 


PROTECTION  OF  PROPERTY-SECTARIAN  SCHOOLS. 

According  to  the  analysis  adopted  for  this 
discussion,  the  first  right  of  man  is  to  life,  the 
second  to  liberty,  and  the  third  to  property. 
It  is  needless  to  specify  the  ways  in  which 
these  natural  rights  may  be  forfeited;  but  it 
may  be  well  to  insist  upon  them  as  belonging 
to  all  persons  of  sound  mind,  unless  they  have 
been  forfeited.  Of  the  first  two,  we  have 
already  spoken;  and  of  the  last,  this  only  shall 
be  added,  that  no  principle  of  morals  is  more 
self-evident  than  the  one  expressed  by  the  old 
maxim,  suum  cinque;  and  surely  the  product  of 
a  man's  labor,  the  use  and  fruit  of  his  own 
powers,  must  belong  to  himself;  the  originator 
of  a  value  must  be  the  owner  of  it.     This  is  a 


94  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

universal  principle,  the  true  and  only  basis  of 
political  economy,  regarded  as  the  science  of 
property. 

Reject  it,  and  nothing  remains  but  a  choice 
between  Absolutism  and  Communism,  between 
the  doctrine  that  might  makes  right,  and  the 
doctrine  that  the  idle  are  entitled  to  the  fruits 
of  labor  just  as  much  as  the  diligent;  that  exist- 
ence, and  not  the  proper  use  of  one's  powers, 
establishes  the  "riorht  to  a  livinor."  Both  these 
doctrines  are  rejected  by  the  Word  of  God,  the 
former  by  the  view  which  that  Word  gives  of 
Ahab's  conduct  in  appropriating  Naboth's  vine- 
yard, and  the  latter  by  the  language  of  Peter  to 
Ananias:  *' While  it  remained  (unsold)  was  it 
not  thine  own?"  and  of  Paul  to  the  Thessaloni- 
ans:  "If  any  one  will  not  work,  neither  let  him 
eat.  These  passages  are  brought  forward  merely 
as  samples  of  Scriptural  language,  recognizing 
the  right  of  the  people  to  property,  honestly 
gained.     The  producer  owns  the  product. 


PROTECTION  OF  PROPERTY.  9a 

It  must,  however,  be  recollected  at  this  point, 
that  a  part  of  the  value  of  any  product  of  human 
industry  is  due  to  the  protection  which  the  State 
gives  to  the  natural  rights  of  man,  including  the 
right  of  property ;  and  this  part  of  the  whole 
value  may  perhaps  be  estimated  as  equal  to  the 
percentage  necessary  for  the  support  of  a  gov- 
ernment able  to  protect  those  rights — a  good 
government  paying  for  itself  in  the  increased 
value  which  it  gives  to  property,  without  re- 
gard to  the  protection  which  it  affords  to  life 
and  liberty. 

To  this  percentage,  then,  looking  only  at 
property,  "the  powers  that  be"  are  in  a  cer- 
tain sense  entitled,  but  to  no  more;  and  not 
even  to  this,  in  all  cases,  when  the  subject  is 
more  broadly  considered.  For  the  State,  as 
previously  shown,  does  not  exist  for  its  own 
sake,  but  rather  for  the  accomplishment  of  cer- 
tain great  ends ;  and  therefore  it  can  claim  no 
more   of   the  people's  wealth  than  is  requisite 


96  RELIGION  AND  THE   STATE. 

to  secure  those  ends.  Besides,  in  any  well- 
ordered  State  the  moral  sentiment  of  the  peo- 
ple is  the  chief  support  of  the  rulers,  doing  far 
more  than  they  to  honor  and  execute  the  law. 

In  reality,  the  government  acts  for  the  peo- 
ple; and,  if  its  functions  are  rightly  defined, 
it  is  entitled  to  exact  from  them  no  moie  than 
is  necessary  to  enable  it  to  jDrotect  them  in  the 
exercise  of  their  natural  rights  against  foreign 
or  domestic  agcrression.  Hence  it  should  never 
tax  them  for  the  support  of  religious  institu- 
tions of  any  kind.  For,  in  the  first  place,  it 
can  hardly  be  shown  that  the  influence  of  any 
particular  form  of  religion  is  indispensable  to 
the  protective  power   and   action  of  the  State. 

Judaism,  Mohammedanism,  or  Confucianism 
would  perhaps  serve  the  same  purpose,  in  this 
respect,  as  Christianity;  and  surely  it  would 
be  impossible  to  name  any  Christian  sect  which 
might  not  aid  the  government  sufiiciently  in  its 
appropriate  work.     Yet  if   the  State  is   to  en- 


PROTECTION  OF  PROPERTY.  97 

courage  religion  at  all  in  a  pecuniary  way,  it 
must  discriminate  between  different  forms  of 
religion,  and  assist  those,  or  that,  which  it  ap- 
proves— a  function  for  which  it  is  incompetent. 

But,  in  the  second  place — and  this  is  the 
most  important  consideration  by  far^ — it  can 
hardly  be  shown  that  pecuniary  aid  of  any 
kind  from  the  State  is  necessary  to  the  exist- 
ence and  beneficial  influence  of  religion.  In- 
deed, there  arc  cogent  reasons  for  believing 
that  such  aid  has  always  been  detrimental  to 
the  bodies  that  have  received  it;  that  the  moral 
and  spiritual  power  of  Christian  churches  has 
been  weakened  by  leaning  upon  the  secular 
arm. 

The  idle  populace  of  Rome  were  never  in- 
cited to  virtue,  or  diligence,  or  noble  endeavor, 
by  largesses  of  corn  from  the  Emperor;  nor 
have  the  followers  of  Jesus  ever  been  raised 
to  a  higher  plane  of  spiritual  life  imd  useful- 
ness by  State  patronage.  On  the  contrary, 
7 


98  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

they  have  been  led  to  distrust  the  power  of 
truth  and  grace,  crying  out  with  aUirm  at  the 
prospect   of   a  withdrawal  of  government   aid. 

Witness  the  attitude  of  many  Lutherans  in 
Germany,  and  Churchmen  in  England,  at  the 
present  hour.  Haviug  been  cherished  by  the 
State  till  they  have  lost  confidence  in  the  agen- 
cies provided  by  Christ  for  the  upbuilding  of 
his  kingdom,  they  are  filled  with  anxiety,  if  not 
despair,  at  the  rapid  progress  of  events  towards 
the  separation  of  Church  and  State.  But  their 
apprehensions  of  evil  are  vain.  What  they 
fear,  will  prove  a  blessing  to  the  people  of  God. 
If,  then,  it  be  granted  that  the  influence  of  re- 
ligion is  needed  by  human  governments,  it  does 
not  follow  that  they  are  to  tax  the  people  for 
the  support  of  religion. 

Sunlight  and  air  are  also  necessary  to  the 
existence  of  a  good  government;  but  the  peo- 
ple are  not  taxed  for  them.  It  must  never  be 
forgotten  that  God  has  provided  for  the  |3er- 


PROTECTION  OF  PROPERTY. 


petuation,  diffusion,  and  power  of  religion, 
independently  of  the  State,  and  therefore  the 
latter  is  relieved  from  a  task  quite  beyond  its 
wisdom  and  strength. 

These  sentiments  are  not  new  to  Baptists. 
They  have  been  among  the  ** common  places" 
of  our  creed  for  a  century,  at  least. 

The  right  of  the  State  to  tax  any  one  for  the 
benefit  of  religious  teachers  whose  doctrine  he 
does  not  believe,  was  first  denied,  and  then 
with  logical  consistency  the  right  of  the  State 
to  tax  one  for  the  support  of  religious  teachers 
whose  doctrine  he  does  believe,  was  also  denied. 
The  Church,  it  has  been  constantly  affirmed,  is 
independent  of  the  State,  but  friendly  to  it; 
while  on  the  other  hand  the  State  is  independ- 
ent of  the  Church,  but  friendly  to  it. 

All  the  applications  of  this  doctrine  may  not 
have  been  insisted  on  with  wisdom  and  firm- 
ness, but  the  doctrine  itself,  as  was  meet,  has 
been  proclaimed  upon  the  housetop.     When  a 


100  RELIGION  AND   THE   STATE. 

thorough  application  of  it  has  been  seen  to  be 
for  our  own  benefit,  and  a  disregard  of  it  op- 
pressive to  us,  the  doctrine  has  been  earnestly 
set  forth;  but  when  the  application  of  it, 
though  required  by  principle  and  consistency, 
Avould  have  cut  us  off,  perhaps  with  others, 
from  a  present  relief  and  a  seeming  good,  it 
may  be  doubted  whether  as  much  zeal  has  been 
shown  in  j^roclaimiug  it.  Nor  is  this  a  sur- 
prising phenomenon  of  history. 

Good  men  have  rarely  been  perfect,  and 
one  would  sooner  trust  them  to  detect  a  wrong 
which  was  felt  as  an  injury  to  themselves,  than 
a  wrong  which  was  supposed  to  be  a  benefit. 
The  latter  they  might  accept  without  scrutiny, 
leaving  the  responsibility  with  others ;  the  for- 
mer they  would  be  likely  to  examine  rigorously ; 
protesting  against  the  injury  as  being  also  a 
wrong.  And  this  would  be  specially  true  of 
the  less  obvious  violations  of  an  accepted  prin- 
ciple. 


PROTECTION  OF  PROPERTY.  101 

In  this  way,  may  be  explained  the  readiness 
with  which,  in  some  instances.  Baptists  have 
received  aid  from  the  State  for  the  endowment 
of  schools  under  their  control.  Not  that  they 
have  been  often  gnijtified  with  evidences  of  such 
favor,  for  it  can  be  truly  said  of  them  in  com- 
parison with  others,  that  they  have  only  ''been 
holpen  with  a  little  help;"  yet  even  this  help, 
sought  and  accepted  by  them  for  colleges  under 
their  care,  has  proved  them  careless  of  princi- 
ple in  the  presence  of  a  pecuniary  advantage. 
For  though  admission  to  these  colleges  has  in 
no  case  been  limited  by  religious  tests,  and 
though  the  instruction  given  in  them  is  not 
at  ail  sectarian,  they  have  been  founded  and 
fostered  with  a  view,  more  or  less  distinct,  to 
the  increase  of  Baptist  influence,  the  spread  of 
Baptist  doctrine,  and  the  growth  of  Baptist 
churches. 

It  is  therefore  plain,  that  grants  in  aid  of 
such  schools  are  indirectly,  and  to  a  certain  ex- 


102  RELIGION  AND   THE  STATE. 

tent,  grants  in  aid  of  the  denomination.  How 
much  has  been  done  for  Unitarians  by  Harvard ! 
How  much  for  Presbyterians  by  Princeton !  How 
much  for  Congregationalists  by  Yale  and  Dart- 
mouth and  Amherst!  Many  persons  believe 
that  colleges  and  theological  schools  ought  to 
be  supported  altogether  by  private  munificence  : 
and  much  may  be  urged  in  favor  of  their  belief. 
For  if  the  end  of  human  government  is  the  pro- 
tection of  life,  liberty,  and  property,  it  cannot 
be  proved  that  such  government  must  offer  to 
the  people  liberal  culture  in  order  to  accom- 
plish that  end. 

The  rudiments  of  knowledge,  provided  for 
all  in  the  common  schools,  are  sufficient  for  the 
purpose  named;  while  the  higher  forms  of 
learning  are  certain  to  bo  furnished  by  private 
liberality,  to  those  who  desire  them.  Besides 
this,  it  is  evident  that  young  men  in  college 
need  to  be  brought  under  a  more  positive 
Christian  influence  than  State  institutions  can 


PROTECTION  OF  PROPERTY.  103 

furnish.  But  if  "the  powers  that  be"  are 
ever  to  l)e  justified  in  contributing  from  the 
public  treasury  to  the  support  of  denomina- 
tional schools,  it  is  only  when  they  make  it 
reasonably  certain  that  those  schools  will  do 
their  work  faithfully. 

The  State  should  have  the  right  of  examina- 
tion, the  right  to  assure  itself  that  the  people's 
money  accomplishes  the  object  for  which  it  was 
given.  But  it  is  exceedingly  doubtful  whether 
aid  should  be  given  on  any  terms  to  such 
schools.  If  the  Baptists  wish  to  have  a  uni- 
versity under  their  control,  let  them  found  it; 
if  the  Presbyterians  desire  such  a  school,  let 
them  do  the  same;  so  of  the  Roman  Catholics, 
and  the  rest.  Let  none  of  them  ask  for  more 
than  protection  from  the  State. 

And  with  still  greater  emphasis  must  this  be 
said  of  theological  seminaries.  There  can  be 
no  valid  excuse  for  taxinsr  Methodists  and  Pres- 
byterians  to  support  Baptist  teachers  of  theol- 


104  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

ogy.  There  can  be  no  justice  in  compelling 
Jews  and  Baptists  to  pay  a  Lutheran  divine 
for  inculcating  doctrines  which  the}^  believe  to 
be  false. 

The  cause  of  true  religion  will  not  be  ad- 
vanced by  encouraging  the  State  to  take  money 
from  Protestants  to  sustain  Papal  theologians 
in  teaching  the  dogmas  of  Rome.  A  govern- 
ment which  does  all  this  deliberately,  can  have 
little  reverence  for  the  Word  of  God,  or  respect 
for  the  religious  convictions  of  men.  For  it 
seems  to  treat  all  forms  of  religion  with  equal 
favor,  though  some  of  them  must  be  regarded 
as  false,  if  any  are  accepted  as  true;  and  it 
calls  upon  men  to  support  what  they  do  not 
believe,  for  the  miserable  consideration  of  be- 
ing in  turn  supported  in  what  they  do  believe — 
all  denominations  being  required  to  do  evil 
that  good  may  come. 

But  in  the  end  it  is  sure  to  bestow  its  am- 
•     'plest  favors  on  that  form  of  religion  which  is 


PROTECTION  OF  PROPERTY.  105 

least  spiritual  and  most  politic.  Let  no  one 
suppose  that,  in  the  long  run,  any  Protestant 
denomination  will  be  able  to  compete  with 
the  Papacy  in  winning  assistance  from  the 
State.  If  the  functions  of  civil  government 
be  not  restricted  to  secular  affairs,  to  the  pro- 
tection of  natural  rights,  it  will  be  found  cast- 
ins:  its  influence  in  favor  of  the  Church  which 
is  most  like  itself,  and  will  give  the  most 
votes. 

With  nearly  the  same  emphasis  may  this 
course  of  thought  be  applied  to  church  prop- 
erty. There  seems  to  be  no  sufficient  reason 
why  the  increase  of  such  property  should  be 
especially  fostered  by  the  State.  It  may,  in- 
deed, by  cultivating  piety  and  morality,  be 
more  useful  to  the  people  than  other  property^; 
but  it  has  never  been  proved  that  human  rulers 
are  charged  wath  the  duty  of  taking  care  of  re- 
ligion, nor  has  it  been  proved  that  State  aid  is 
necessary   to    induce   or   enable   Chiistians   to 


106  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

increase  church  property  as  rapidly  as  it  will 
be  used  for  the  good  of  men. 

Is  it  probable  that  the  splendid  cathedrals  of 
the  Papal  Church,  erected  at  vast  expense  from 
the  contributions  of  the  poor,  and  owned  by 
the  hierarchy  instead  of  the  congregation,*  do 
any  more  for  good  morals  among  the  people, 
than  would  be  done  by  humbler  edifices  ?  Is 
it  certain  that  the  costly  Gothic  churches,  built 
by  some  Protestant  congregations,  serve  the 
cause  of  genuine  virtue  and  piety  better  than 
it  would  be  served  by  less  expensive  buildings. 
Certain  it  is,  that  in  the  Middle  Ages  vast  accu- 
mulations of  ecclesiastical  wealth  were  wholly 
untaxed;  while  the  burdens  of  civil  government 
pressed  with  crushing  weight  on  secular  estates. 

From  the  nature  of  the  case,  therefore,  and 
from  the  lessons  of  history  as  well,  it  may  be 
inferred  that  a  moderate  tax,  levied  on  church 

*  See  "Church  and  State  in  the  United  States,"  by  J.  P. 
Thompson,  p.  74,  for  a  particular  statement  as  to  the  laws 
of  New  York. 


PROTECTIOX    OF  PROPERTY.  107 

property,  would  tend  in  no  degree  to  weaken 
the  power  of  religion;  but  would  act  as  a 
wholesome  check  to  extravagance  in  building 
and  in  heaping  up  wealth  under  priestly  con- 
trol. 

"A  moderate  tax"  is  mentioned  for  these 
reasons : 

1.  Because  the  market  value  of  church  prop- 
erty is  in  reality  far  less  than  its  cost,  and  far 
less  than  it  would  ordinarily  l)e  estimated  to 
be  worth  by  its  owners.  Yet  the  market  value 
is  obviously  that  which  must  be  taken  into  view 
in  taxation. 

2.  Because  all  property  which  is  held  in 
trust  for  a  purely  benevolent  use  should  be 
lightly  taxed.  Ordinarily,  church  property  is 
held  in  this  way.  Those  in  whom  the  title  is 
vested  cannot  sell  the  property,  and  divide  the 
proceeds  among  themselves.  They  must  use 
the  property  for  a  certain  purpose;    they  are 


108  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

virtually  trustees,  not  owners;  and  the  purpose 
is  supposed  to  be  charitable. 

Many  intelligent  Christians  take  the  ground 
,  that  property  held  in  trust  for  benevolent  uses 
ought  never  to  be  taxed  at  all;  and  that  all 
property  held  for  religious  uses  must  be  put  in 
the  same  categorj^  since  it  l)rings  no  pecuniary 
income  to  those  holding  it.  But  there  are  diffi- 
culties in  the  way  of  accepting  this  view  with- 
out qualification,  though  much  certainly  may 
be  said  in  its  favor. 

For  in  the  first  place,  the  profession  of  relig- 
ious ends  does  not  always  exclude  other  ends; 
some  of  them  possibly  dangerous  to  the  rights 
of  men,  if  not  to  the  State  itself. 

And  in  the  second  place,  when  religion  de- 
generates into  superstition,  there  is  danger  from 
the  accumulation  of  property  held  for  relig- 
ious purposes.  The  Mormons  may  put  all  their 
property  into  the  hands  of  their  chief;  the  Pap- 


PROTECTION  OF  PROPERTY.  109 

ists  ir.ay  put  too  much  of  theirs  into  the  hands 
of  their  bishops. 

But  the  relief  of  church  property  from  taxa- 
tion has  been  no  more  unwise,  except  as  it 
operated  on  a  larger  scale,  than  the  relief  of 
school  property  under  sectarian  control.  For 
it  cannot  be  denied  that  many  executive 
boards  have  proceeded  too  hastily  in  the  erec- 
tion of  costly  buildings,  involving  themselves 
in  debt  and  lowering  the  standard  of  merit  in 
their  teachers — a  mistake  which  would  proba- 
bly have  been  prevented  by  a  knowledge  that 
property  in  the  form  of  school  buildings  must 
be  taxed. 

It  is  also  to  be  observed  that  vast  estates  in 
the  hands  of  a  religious  body,  for  purposes  of 
education,  but  free  from  secular  control  and 
paying  nothing  directly  for  the  support  of  hu- 
man government,  may  prove  exceedingly  dan- 
gerous  to  freedom.     The   religious  body  may 


110  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

become  unfriendly  to  the  State,  or  may  believe 
itself  authorized  by  God  to  use  the  State  for 
its  own  ends,  and  may  therefore  need  to  be  re- 
minded of  the  supremacy  of  the  State  in  its 
own  sphere.  Hence,  on  grounds  of  mere  pru- 
dence, it  seems  desirable  to  tax  such  property 
and  compel  it  to  honor   "the  powers  that  be.'* 


CHARITABLE   ESTABLISHMENTS. 

In  the  preceding  section,  a  few  reasons  were 
assigned  for  believing  that  neither  church  prop- 
erty nor  school  property,  under  the  control  of 
a  religious  body,  should  have  pecuniary  aid 
from  the  State,  even  by  way  of  release  from 
taxes.  On  the  latter  point  many  will  dissent 
from  the  writer;  but  it  seems  to  him  plain 
that  there  is  no  difference,  in  principle,  between 
giving  a  sum  of  money  out  of  the  treasury  yearly 
to  a  sectarian  school  or  church,  and  releasing 
the  school  or  church  from  the  payment  of  that 
sum  yearly  into  the  treasury.  In  either  case 
the  sum  must  be  added  to  the  amount  raised  by 
tax  from  the  people,  even  though  two-thirds  of 


112  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

them  reject  the  cloctrmes  of  religion  taught  by 
that  school  or  that  church. 

If  now  it  be  said  that  school-houses  and 
meeting-houses  are  in  a  pecuniary  sense  un- 
productive, the  same  may  be  said  of  dwelling- 
houses  occupied  by  their  owners ;  and  if  it  be 
asserted  that  the  former  enhance  the  value  of 
real  estate,  and  so  benefit  the  town,  the  same 
may  be  asserted  in  many  instances  of  the  latter 
also. 

Again,  if  it  be  said  that  a  company  of  private 
citizens  may  give  to  Baptists  or  Methodists 
church  lots,  with  a  view  to  attract  purchasers 
of  a  certain  class,  or  to  establish  a  church  of 
their  own  faith,  and  that  the  said  Baptists  or 
Methodists  may  accept  them  without  scruple, 
and  use  them  for  religious  purposes,  all  this 
is  freely  admitted;  but  it  furnishes  no  argu- 
ment for  the  reception  of  corner  lots  from  the 
State;  for  such   a  company  is   like  an   individ- 


CHARITABLE  ESTABLISHMENTS.  113 

iial,  not  like  a  civil  government — it  acts  for 
itself,  and  not  for  other  men. 

It  is  not  a  question  with  us  whether  persons 
may  assist  any  religious  society  they  please, 
for  this  is  their  natural  right  as  moral  beings ; 
but  it  is  a  question  whether  the  State  may  make 
use  of  purse  and  sword — constraining  men, 
against  their  convictions  of  duty  to  God  and 
their  sense  of  loyalty  to  truth,  to  uphold  re- 
lio^ious  sects,  or  indeed  reliirion  itself.  The 
two  cases  are  by  no  means  parallel. 

A  single  observation  may  l)e  made  at  this 
point,  on  a  subject  germane  to  the  one  under 
consideration.  In  some  parts  of  the  land  the 
property  or  income  of  clergj^men  is  said  to  be 
exempted  from  taxation.  If  this  be  so,  it  is 
a  misfortune  to  them ;  for  no  men  ought  to  feel 
a  deeper  interest  in  the  welfare  of  their  country 
and  the  stn])ility  of  its  government  than  minis- 
ters of  re]i2:ion;    and    no   better   way    can   be 


114  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

devised  to  keep  alive  iin  interest  in  any  good 
institution,  than  to  call  upon  men  to  give  of 
their  means  for  its  support. 

Besides,  if  the  true  relation  between  State 
and  Church  has  been  advocated  in  these  pages, 
such  discrimination  in  favor  of  religious  teach- 
ers is  wholly  indefensible.  They  should  be 
supported  by  those  whom  they  serve,  by  those 
who  believe  the  doctrines  which  they  inculcate, 
and  not  by  those  who  believe  their  doctrines 
false. 

The  State,  therefore,  has  no  moral  right  to 
give  them,  indirectly,  a  regular  stipend  from 
its  treasury,  though  it  be  done  by  releasing 
their  property  from  taxes,  and  thus  augmenting 
the  burdens  laid  upon  others.  The  evil  may 
be  slight  at  present,  but  the  proportions  to 
which  it  will  grow  in  time  arc  unknown.  It 
should  be  enough  for  any  Christian  that  the 
principle  on  which  such  discrimination  rests 
is  unsound  and  dangerous. 


CHARITABLE  ESTABLISHMENTS.  Uo 

Another  observation  will  bo  in  place.  Chris- 
tian missionaries  have  sometimes  engaged  in 
teach  ins:  the  rudiments  of  knowledo^c  to  the 
Indians  of  our  land,  and  the  national  govern- 
ment has  rewarded  their  service  in  this  direc- 
tion by  * 'grants  in  aid."  The  same  thing  has 
been  done  for  the  missionaries  to  the  Karens, 
by  the  English  government  of  India.  Is  the 
acceptance  of  such  "grants"  inconsistent  with 
the  proper  relation  of  Christians  to  the  State  ? 
Do  they  sanction  by  it  an  attempt  of  the  State  to 
patronize  or  propagate  Christianity,  thus  pass- 
ing beyond  the  limits  of  its  appointed  sphere, 
and  usurping  the  functions  of  a  higher  econ- 
omy?    Perhaps  not. 

If  the  missionary  is  only  recognized  and  paid 
as  a  secular  teacher,  his  religious  work  being 
done  under  other  auspices,  and  the  freedom  of 
the  people  to  hear  or  forbear  being  maintained, 
the  reception  of  "grants  in  aid"  would  appear 
to*  involve  no  violation  of  principle;    for  the 


116  RELIGION  AND   THE  STATE. 

missionaries  would  do  for  the  State  no  more 
than  the  State  might  lawfully  employ  them  to 
do.  How  far  it  may  be  wise  for  missionaries 
to  seek  government  grants  for  the  partial  sup- 
port of  schools  under  their  care  may  be  doubt- 
ful, but  wherever  they  obtain  such  assistance, 
they  should  submit  their  work  to  the  scrutiny 
of  State  officers;  and  this  is  probably  done  in  all 
cases;  certainly  it  is  in  Burmah. 

The  only  other  topic  which  calls  for  notice 
in  this  discussion,  is  that  of  charitable  action 
bj'  Church  and  State;  and  it  is  obviously  one 
of  the  most  difficult.  Many,  indeed,  who  have 
given  years  of  study  to  political  economy,  are 
appalled  at  the  problem  which  clamors  for  so- 
lution, the  problem  of  what  the  State  ought  to 
do  for  the  poor. 

If  *'the  powers  that  be"  are  in  full  sympathy 
with  the  best  aspects  of  Christian  civilization, 
and  are  intent  upon  a  faithful  discharge  of  their 
duty  as  protectors  of  human   life,  they  will  dis- 


CHARITABLE  ESTABLISIIMEXTS.  117 

cover  in  cities,  if  not  in  ruraJ  districts,  a  great 
number  of  persons  who  need  assistance;  and 
the  question  of  their  official  duty  to  the  poor 
will  be  thrust  upon  them  from  every  side. 

Perhaps  it  will  assume  the  form  of  this  alter- 
native :  OuHit  the  State — i2:norino:  as  it  were 
the  family,  the  church,  and  the  various  springs 
of  unconstrained  beneficence — to  hold  itself  pri- 
marily responsible  for  the  support  of  all  within 
its  borders,  who  cannot  take  care  of  them- 
selves ;  so  that  those  in  want  will  be  taught  to 
look  to  it,  in  the  first  place,  for  help?  Or 
ought  civil  rulers  to  regard  spontaneous  char- 
ity, the  help  of  kindred  and  friends,  of  lovers 
of  man  and  lovers  of  God,  as  the  primary  and 
natural  resource  of  the  poor,  while  the  State 
comes  in  to  help  at  the  last  moment,  when  the 
springs  of  spontaneous  charity  fail  ?  And  the 
longer  they  reflect  upon  this  alternative,  the 
more  cliflicult  will  the  answer  which  is  sought 
appear. 


118  RELIGION  AND   THE  STATE. 

It  is  easy  to  say  that  the  State  is  bound  to 
take  care  of  its  poor ;  but  is  it  not  as  easy  to 
say  and  to  see  that  Christians  are  bound  to  take 
care  of  their  poor  ?  that  neighbors  are  bound 
to  help  their  destitute  and  suffering  neighbors  ? 
that  strangers,  like  the  good  Samaritan,  when 
Providence  permits,  are  bound  to  help  strang- 
ers in  distress? 

Is  there  anything  in  the  Word  of  God  favor- 
able to  the  idea  of  taxing  the  property  for  the 
benefit  of  the  poor,  instead  of  relying  upon  the 
alms  of  good  men  and  women  to  meet  their 
necessities?  Is  not  State  charity  more  likely 
to  be  received  as  a  debt  than  as  a  gift,  educa- 
ting the  public  mind  to  a  false  view  of  the  case, 
and  destroying  in  paupers  the  sense  of  their 
j^ersonal  responsibilitj^  and  of  their  duty  to 
earn  their  own  bread?  Would  not  a  true  econ- 
omy in  the  use  of  wealth  be  promoted  b}^  leav- 
ing almsgiving  to  individuals  and  voluntary 
associations?    Would  not  the  children  of  want 


CHARITABLE  ESTABLISHMENTS.  119 

be  more  wisely  and  tenderly  assisted  by  this 
spontaneous  charity  ? 

Or,  passing  by  all  these  questions,  is  it  right 
for  Christians,  with  the  New  Testament  in  their 
hands,  to  plead  the  duty  of  the  State  to  care  for 
the  poor  as  a  reason  for  its  aiding  them  to  sup- 
port their  destitute  brethren?  And  if  it  be  said 
in  justification  of  such  a  plea,  that  the  State 
concedes  its  duty  in  this  matter  and  provides 
after  a  fashion  for  paupers,  taxing  all  the  peo- 
ple for  their  good,  so  that  if  Christians  provide 
for  their  own  poor,  they  are  loaded  with  a 
double  burden — it  must  be  responded,  that  this 
is  true ;  yet  the  Jews  of  our  land  do  this  very 
thing,  taking  care  of  their  poor  brethren,  and 
at  the  same  time  paying  taxes  for  the  support 
of  public  paupers;  audit  maybe  added,  that 
giving  does  not  impoverish  them;  the  language 
of  their  ancient  Scriptures  is  verified  by  their 
prosperity  ; 

**He  that  hath  pity  upon  the  poor  lendeth  to 


120  RELIGION  AXD    THE   STATE. 

the  Lord,  and  that  which  he  hath  given  will  He 
pay  him  again." 

Besides,  if  the  State  assists  a  body  of  Chris- 
tians in  founding  and  sustaining  a  great  char- 
itable institution,  because  this  institution  will 
probaljly  relieve  it  from  the  care  of  a  certain 
class  of  paupers,  it  must  assist  other  bodies 
in  the  same  way,  vvhatever  be  their-' religious 
creeds,  provided  they  will  relieve  it  of  similar 
burdens.  And  in  the  end  it  will  be  found  im- 
possible to  discriminate  between  a  home  for 
aged  and  pious  women,  and  one  for  orphan  and 
destitute  children,  though  the  inmates  of  the 
former  have  a  settled  religious  belief,  and  the 
inmates  of  the  latter  are  the  fittest  subjects  for 
proselytism.  Nor  will  it  be  easy  to  limit  the 
sums  which  may  be  given  by  the  State  to  a  pol- 
itic denomination  in  aid  of  charitable  houses, 
or  to  measure  the  sectarian  influence  emanating 
from  them,  when  under  the  control  of  a  skilful 
priesthood. 


CHARITABLE  ESTABLISHMENTS.  121 

It  is  uot,  therefore,  enough  to  show  that  in 
a  given  case  no  denominational  advantage  is 
sought  throusfh  the  establishment  for  which 
state  aid  is  obtained;  it  should  also  be  made 
to  appear  that  a  dangerous  precedent  is  not 
thus  given,  or  a  dangerous  policy  endorsed, 
})y  which  the  way  will  be  opened  for  others  to 
obtain  aid  from  the  public  treasury,  when  the 
end  is  really,  though  not  ostensibly,  sectarian. 
Besides,  it  is  difficult  to  justify  the  State  in 
furnishing  assistance  to  institutions  which  it 
does  not  frequently  examine,  for  the  purpose 
of  assuring  itself  that  the  public  benefactions 
are  not  diverted  from  their  appointed  use. 

For  various  reasons,  then,  it  seems  to  the 
writer  dangerous  for  the  civil  authorities  to 
cooperate  with  religious  bodies  in  charitable 
work,  except  by  way  of  protection.  How  far 
the  State  should  ensfao^e  in  such  work  is  a 
question  not  yet  answered.  Whether  Chris- 
tians have  a  risfht  to  transfer  the  care  of  tlirir 


122  RELIGION  AND   THE  STATE. 

poor  brelhreD  to  the  State,  is  also  a  question  not 
yet  answered.  Whether  they  have  a  right  to 
call  upon  the  State  for  aid  in  caring  for  them, 
is  another  question  to  be  answered.  Whether 
it  is  for  the  real  good  of  Christians  to  have 
their  charitable  work  diminished  by  the  State, 
is  also  to  be  carefully  considered.  But  a  few 
things  are  tolerably  certain,  and  worthy  of 
deep  reflection:  Christians  are  authorized  by 
the  nature  of  their  religion  and  the  precepts 
of  the  New  Testament,  to  provide  for  the  wants 
of  their  brethren ;  and  by  the  favor  of  God  they 
are  able  to  do  this,  while  meeting  all  their  ob- 
ligations to  ' 'the  powers  that  be. "  Again,  they 
will  be  sure  to  increase  their  influence  over 
the  hearts  and  consciences  of  men  by  doing 
without  complaint  more  than  their  proportion 
of  charitable  work,  and  by  doing  it  independ- 
ently of  the  State,  whose  means  for  charity 
are  secured  by  constraint. 

And,  finally,  it  may  be   said,  without  injus- 


CHARITABLE  ESTABLISHMENTS.  123 


ticc  to  civil  rulers  as  a  class,  that  they  are 
likely  to  do  most,  not  for  those  religious  or- 
ganizations which  seek  with  singleness  of  pur- 
pose to  elevate  the  moral  and  spiritual  aims 
of  men,  but  for  those  which  are  specially  ser- 
viceable to  the  rulers  themselves  for  the  time 
being;  and  therefore  it  is  unwise,  if  it  be  not 
wrong,  for  Christians  to  look  to  them  for  help 
in  their  work. 

The  writer,  however,  deems  it  simple  justice 
to  say  that,  in  his  opinion,  the  Christian  women 
who  have  obtained  from  the  State  of  New  York, 
at  a  nominal  rent,  a  site  for  their  projected 
Baptist  Home  for  Aged  Women,  have  secured 
aid  from  the  State  in  one  of  the  least  exception- 
able forms,  and  in  reality,  though  not  in  name, 
for  one  of  the  least  sectarian  purposes. 

If  it  were  wise  for  a  religious  body  to  look  to 
the  State  for  pecuniary  aid  in  any  case,  it  might 
be  in  theirs.  And  if  the  usages  of  the  denom- 
ination in  the  past  were   to  be   taken  as  conclu- 


124  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 


sive  ill  respect  to  the  rii^lit  or  wrong  of  tlieir 
action,  they  would  ceitainly  be  justified.  But 
it  cannot  be  denied  that  special  thought,  both 
in  England  and  America,  has  recently  been 
given  to  the  proper  relation  of  the  State  to  re- 
ligion, and  that  local  events  have  awakened 
the  earnest  attention  of  the  Christians  of  New 
York  to  the  same  subject,  so  that  the  final 
acceptance  of  the  Lease  was  a  marked  and 
even  national  event.  It  represented  a  princi- 
ple and  endorsed  a  policy.  Whether  in  har- 
mony with  Baptist  ideas  and  aims,  or  against 
them,  it  w^as  a  memorable  act,  and  the  honor- 
able and  devout  w^omen,  as  well  as  men,  who 
were  concerned  in  it,  ought  not  to  be  surprised 
at  the  notice  which  was  taken  of  it  by  some  of 
their  brethren,  nor  to  regret  that  the  great 
questions  involved  in  their  action  have  been 
brought  before   the  minds   of  the  people. 

It  is   time,  surely,  for  us  to  review  our  the- 
ory and  practice  on  the  matter  in  the  question, 


CHARITABLE  ESTABLISHMENTS.  125 

or  rather,  on  the  principle  involved.  If  our 
theory  has  been  correct,  onr  practice  has  been 
to  some  extent  wrong;  if  our  practice  has  been 
right,  our  theory  has  been  erroneous. 

A  great  step  in  advance  will  be  taken,  when 
the  proper  sphere  and  end  of  civil  government 
are  made  plain  to  Christians,  and  their  minds 
are  so  filled  by  the  truth  that  they  will  spon- 
taneously act  in  agreement  with  it.  For  how- 
ever inadequately  the  subject  has  been  treated 
in  these  pages,  no  graver  or  more  far-reaching 
question  than  this  is  now  before  the  public 
mind.  Let  it  not  be  dismissed  until  the  true 
answer  is  found. 

Having  now  examined  the  most  important 
applications  of  the  doctrine  that  the  State 
should  give  to  the  people  "protection  and 
nothing  more"  in  matters  of  religion,  it  may 
seem  to  the  reader  time  for  the  discussion  to 
be  closed;  but  there  are  a  few  general  consid- 
erations, bearing   on   the  subject,   which  must 


126  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

be  noticed  before  the  present  writer  can  feel 
that  his  duty  is  accomplished.  Many  obsta- 
cles which  seem  to  lie  in  the  way  of  adopting 
the  view  defended  in  this  essay,  and  which  at 
first  appear  insurmountable,  may,  it  is  be- 
lieved, be  removed  by  these  considerations; 
the  reader's  favor  is  therefore  solicited  until 
they  are  laid  before  him. 


GENERAL    OBSERVATIONS, 

It  seems  to  be  thought  by  many,  that  if 
Christians  now  admit  the  impropriety  of  their 
havino^  aid  from  the  State  for  relisfious  or  sec- 
tarian  purposes,  they  must  in  equity  repay  the 
body  politic  for  all  they  have  received  in  the 
past.  But  this  is  evidently  a  mistake.  In 
many  instances  such  repayment  would  be  im- 
possible; in  others  it  would  be  plainly  unjust. 
In  thousands  of  cases,  perhaps,  the  grant  has 
been  used  for  the  purpose  intended,  and  neither 
it,  nor  a  pecuniary  equivalent  for  it,  any  longer 
exists.  In  almost  as  many  cases,  societies  have 
been  led,  by  the  proffer  of  State  aid,  to  do  what 
they  would  never  have  attempted  without  it; 
and,  as  a  natural  result,  they  are   quite   unable 


128  RELIGION  AND   THE  STATE. 

to  refund  such  aid.  For  instance,  in  consid- 
eration of  a  grant  of  land  from  the  town  for  a 
site,  and  of  freedom  from  taxes  for  the  whole 
property,  a  church  has  erected  a  liouse  of  wor- 
ship far  more  costly  than  it  would  otherwise 
have  built ;  the  value  of  the  site  and  the  ag- 
gregate amount  of  the  taxes  remitted  have  both 
increased  year  by  year  for  a  longtime;  and 
the  church  w^ould  now  hQ  found  unable  to  repay 
the  town.  Nor,  indeed,  ought  it  to  do  this; 
for  its  past  action  was  due  to  an  error  of  the 
town  as  truly  as  to  its  own  error. 

The  civil  authorities  acted  in  good  faith  when 
giving,  and  the  Christian  society  wdien  receiv- 
ing such  help ;  and  though  a  better  way  has  been 
discovered,  it  would  be  futile  to  attempt  a  re- 
storation of  the  condition  of  affairs  before  the 
help  was  granted.  All  that  can  wisely  be  done 
is  to  accept  the  situation  as  it  is,  and  act  for 
the  future  on  right  principles. 

The  writer  believes  that  he  does  not  under- 


GENERAL   OBSERVATIONS.  129 

rate  the  difficulties  which  must  needs  be  met  in 
changing  the  policy  of  the  State  as  to  the  ex- 
emption of  religious  and  educational  property 
from  taxes.  They  have  seemed  to  him  so  for- 
midable that  he  had  thought  of  attempting  to 
suggest  certain  steps  preparatory  to  the  final 
change.  But  the  following  remarks  of  the 
Honorable  Josiah  P.  Quincy  are,  on  the  whole, 
satisfactory  to  his  judgment,  as  pointing  out 
a  reasonable  method  of  reaching  in  due  time 
the  desired  result. 

''While  many  good  men  feel  strongly,  and 
even  bitterly,  the  impolicy  of  these  (our  exemp- 
tion laws),  all  wise  men  must  unite  in  opposing 
their  immediate  and  unconditional  abolition. 
Any  one  but  a  fanatic  must  see  that  it  would  be 
inexpedient — and  inexpedient  because  it  would 
be  unjust — to  assess  the  Institute  of  Technology 
or  the  noble  Catholic  Cathedral  upon  Washing- 
ton Street,  on  their  property  valuation   in    the 

coming  May.     The  penalties  of  injudicious  leg- 
9 


130  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

islation  cannot  be  remitted  by  drawing  the  pen 
through  a  bad  law.  If  taxes  are  ever  to  be 
assessed  upon  existing  corporations  now  ex- 
empted, they  must  come  very  gradually,  after 
due  warning,  and  as  part  of  a  statesmanlike 
scheme  of  economic  reform.  I  offer  three  sug- 
gestions, which  embody  all  the  legislation  which 
seems  to  me  desirable  at  the  present  time  : 

First.  That,  so  far  as  regards  all  corporations 
hereafter  to  be  created,  this  objectionable  form 
of  State  aid  shall  be  abolished.  If  assistance 
is  to  be  given  them,  it  shall  take  the  form  of 
direct  appropriation. 

Second.  That  no  existing  corporation  shall  be 
permitted,  upon  sale  of  exempted  property,  to 
appropriate  its  increased  value  for  secular  or 
non-charitable  purposes;  except  such  corpora- 
tions as  shall  elect  to  purchase  this  right  by 
paying,  principal  and  interest,  all  taxes  which 
have  been  remitted  to  them. 

Third.  That  a  commission  be  appointed  to 


GENERAL   OBSERVATIONS.  131 

consider  what  may  be  the  just  claims  of  tax- 
exempted  corporations  upon  the  State;  and 
also  how  that  mode  of  State  assistance  may 
be  finally  abolished  with  the  least  possible 
injury  to  the  religious  and  educational  inter- 
ests of  the  Commonwealth;  and  to  the  just 
property  interests  of  any  special  class  of  her 
citizens;  and  that  this  commission  shall  report 
to  some  future  legislature.  ("Tax-exemption 
no  Excuse  for  Spoliation."    p.  1.) 

Treating  the  matter  in  this  way,  the  work  of 
disconnecting  the  Church  from  the  State  in  our 
land  would  be  far  less  difficult  than  the  "dis- 
establishment" of  the  Irish  Church;  yet  the 
latter  is  going  steadily  forward,  and  is  ex- 
pected, by  all  the  friends  of  religious  equality, 
to  prove  a  "grand  success." 

\Yhen  a  given  course  is  seen  to  be  right, 
and  Christian  men  resolve  to  follow  it  unflinch- 
ingly, difficulties  vanish.  St.  George  Mivart, 
in  his  recent  treatise  on  the  "Genesis  of  Spc- 


132  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

cies,"  maintains  that  *' natural  selection,"  as 
explained  by  Charles  Darwin,  "could  not  alone 
have  given  rise  to  the  maxim,  Fiat  justitia, 
mat  ccelum;^'  and  he  might  have  added,  that 
no  men  have  proved  themselves  more  willing 
to  act  on  that  maxim  than  enlightened  Chris- 
tians. Many  a  time  have  they  been  forced  to 
cry  out,  in  view  of  perils  or  sacrifices, — 

"Let  right  be  done,  though  the  heavens 
fall;"  but  lo,  the  heavens   did  not  fall! 

It  is  also  believed  by  many,  that  whatever 
in  the  abstract  may  be  the  right  or  wrong  of 
the  case,  in  the  concrete,  in  the  present  condi- 
tions of  religious  life  and  power,  it  is  expedient 
and  therefore  right  to  cooperate  as  heretofore 
with  the  State.  And  a  principle  reason  for  so 
doing  is  the  assumption  that  two  or  more  great 
denominations  in  our  land  will  not  consent  to 
relinquish  the  State  patronage  which  they  have 
largely  secured  in  certain  places,  and  which 
they  hope  to  secure  in  others,  w^hile  "the  pow- 


GENERAL   OBSERVATIONS.  133 

ers  that  be"  will  not  find  it  for  their  interest 
to  withdraw  their  patronage  from  their  friends. 

Then,  further,  it  is  silently  assumed  that 
State  patronage  is  a  real  benefit  to  the  relig- 
ious bodies  that  enjoy  it,  and  therefore,  in 
fairness,  should  be  accorded  to  all,  or  to 
none.  But  this  argument  is  specious  rather 
than  convincing.  Not  one  of  the  assumptions 
on  which  it  rests  can  be  accepted  as  sure  by 
a  wise  student  of  history.  For  such  a  student 
is  prepared  for  surprises. 

He  knows  that  the  unseen  forces  which 
mould  the  minds  of  men  often  change  the 
belief  and  policy  of  those  who  mean  to  be 
inflexible;  and  he  would  not  dare  to  say  that 
even  the  Papal  hierarchy  may  not  abjure  the 
aid  of  the  civil  power,  in  deference  to  public 
opinion;  much  less  would  he  dare  to  affirm 
that  the  rulers  of  the  land  may  not  find  it 
prudent  to  side  with  the  Protestant  majority 
in  favor  of  ''protection"  against  a  Papal  minor- 


134  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

ity  in  favor  of  ** cooperation;"  above  all,  he 
would  not  dare  to  assert  that  State  patronage 
is  in  reality  a  blessing  to  the  Church  which  re- 
ceives it,  that  "provision  of  the  King's  meat 
and  of  the  wine  which  he  drank,"  is  better  for 
the  children  of  God  than  **pulse  to  eat  and' 
water  to  drink." 

A  historical  survey  of  Christendom  from 
the  ascension  of  Jesus  to  the  present  time, 
ought  to  convince  any  one  that  the  power  of 
religion  is  not  due  to  the  civil  purse  or  sword. 
It  has  a  higher  and  a  purer  source.  It  reveals 
its  grandeur  when  the  world  frowns.  It  has 
made  the  lowly  and  persecuted  illustrious,  by 
working  in  their  hearts,  transforming  their 
characters,  uplifting  them  in  the  scale  of  moral 
worth,  and  making  them  kings  and  priests  unto 
God  in  the  realm  of  spiritual  truth.  It  has  filled 
the  valleys  and  the  mountains  with  Christian 
heroes,  preserving  the  gospel  free  from  age  to 
age.     It  is  simply  a  mistake  to  suppose  that 


GENERAL   OBSERVATIONS.  135 

revivals,  conversions,  reformations,  have  come 
in  the  line  of  governmental  favor  and  support. 
It  is  simply  an  error  of  judgment  to  think 
that  Christians  would  have  done  more  for  the 
spread  of  the  gospel  in  foreign  parts  and  the 
conversion  of  the  world,  if  they  had  been 
helped  by  larger  grants  from  the  State  at 
home.  That  they  have  been  overburdened, 
is  not  true.  That  they  have  been  called  to 
give  more  than  they  were  able,  is  not  true. 
Is  there  the  slightest  reason  to  believe  that 
any  amount  of  State  patronage,  during  the 
last  hundred  years,  would  have  made  the  num- 
bers of  actual  Christians  in  our  churches 
greater  than  it  now  is  ?  Is  there  the  faintest  rea- 
son for  supposing  that  Baptist  churches  would 
have  fewer  worthy  members  or  less  religious  in- 
fluence hereafter,  if  they  alone  should  decline 
all  aid  from  the  State  ?  Such  a  result  would 
contradict  all  we  know  of  the  kingdom  of  Christ 
and  of  the  nature  of  man. 


136  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

Again,  it  is  alleged  that  Christians  should 
cooperate  with  the  State  for  its  benefit.  And 
this  is  certainly  true,  if  a  suitable  meaning  is 
given  to  the  word  "cooperate."  No  one  can 
be  more  willing  than  the  writer  to  admit  the 
duty  of  Christians  to  seek  the  welfare  of  the 

State. 

They  should  obey  its  laws,  honor  its  rul- 
ers, and  use  their  influence  in  every  proper 
way  to  make  it  just  and  beneficent.  They 
should  aim  to  fill  the  minds  of  the  people 
with  Christian  principles,  and  to  win  them  to 
the  service  of  the  Master.  They  should  also 
be  ready,  if  need  be,  to  take  any  official  posi- 
tion, high  or  low,  in  peace  or  in  war,  which 
they  are  qualified  to  hold,  making  it  a  point, 
however,  to  maintain  always  and  everywhere 
their  religious  faith  and  life,  while  employing 
the  power  of  the  State  with  scrupulous  fidelity 
for  the  attainment  of  its  appropriate  ends. 
But  they  should  never,  either  directly  or  in- 


GENERAL   OBSERVATIONS.  137 

directly,  impose  on  the  State  a  part  of  the 
burden  which  belongs  to  them  as  Christians. 
They  should  never  tax  the  people  nor  de- 
plete the  treasury  for  the  support  of  sectarian 
institutions,  or,  indeed,  of  religion  in  any 
form. 

For  the  State  is  charged  with  secular  duties, 
and  the  Lord  has  no  need  of  its  purse  and  sword 
for  the  establishment  or  extension  of  his  spir- 
itual reign  over  the  hearts  of  men.  All  that 
Christians  can  do  for  the  benefit  of  the  State, 
they  are  bound  to  do  and  will  do  freely,  ask- 
ing no  return  but  protection  in  the  exercise  of 
their  natural  rights.  If  they  ask  for  more,  it 
will  be  under  a  mistaken  view  of  the  relation 
of  civil  government  to  religion. 

Again  it  is  asserted  that  Baptist  usage  and 
precedent  endorse  positive  action  by  the  State  in 
favor  of  religion.  By  accepting  church-lots  and 
release  from  taxes  of  church  property,  and  grants 
in  aid  of  denominational  work  in  schools.  Bap- 


138  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

tists  as  well  as  others  have  really  given  in  their 
adhesion  to  the  view  that  the  State  as  such  may 
enter  the  domain  of  religion,  and  constrain  men 
to  support  a  faith  which  they  do  not  approve. 
And  surely,  it  is  sometimes  added.  Baptists 
have  gone  far  enough  in  defence  of  religious 
liberty;  they  have  proved  themselves  radicals 
in  assertins:  the  riijhts  of  the  individual  con- 
science;  and  it  may  he  taken  for  granted  that 
no  further  progress  in  that  direction  is  either 
safe  or  right.  But  no  such  thing  can  be  taken 
for  granted.  The  fact  is,  that  Baptist  usage 
has  been  inconsistent  in  this  matter. 

It  has  allowed  in  one  form  what  it  has  con- 
demned in  another.  It  has  protested,  even  to 
imprisonment,  against  direct  taxation  for  the 
support  of  religion,  but  has  winked  at  indirect 
taxation  for  the  same  purpose.  It  is  charitable 
to  believe  that  this  inconsistency  has  not  com- 
monly been  perceived ;  but  it  is  now  manifest 
to  all,  and  the  only  proper  course  is  to  bring 


GENERAL   OBSERVATIONS.  139 


our  practice  as  soon  as  possible  into  agreement 
with  our  theory. 

For  the  latter  is  Scriptural,  and  the  former 
is  not;  the  latter  accords  with  the  genius  and 
spirit  of  our  churches,  and  the  former  does  not; 
the  latter  is  in  harmony  with  all  the  better  ten- 
dencies of  Protestant  Christianity,  and  the  for- 
mer is  not.  By  clinging  to  precedent  in  dis- 
regard of  principle,  the  Baptists  of  America 
would  ally  themselves  with  the  Papacy,  and 
close  the  door  of  hope  for  the  future.  Of  all 
men  they  should  be  the  last  to  take  the  prac- 
tice of  their  own  churches,  instead  of  the  Apos- 
tolic, as  a  guide  to  duty.  In  this  respect  above 
all  others  they  should  be  careful  to  shun  even 
the  form  of  evil;  for  a  sacred  regard  to  ajDos- 
tolic  teaching  and  precedent  is  the  source  of 
their  power.  When  there  is  danger  of  turning 
to  other  masters,  their  watchword  should  be, 
ohsta  principiis,  let  the  first  indications  of  reli- 
ance on  human  authority  be  resisted. 


140  RELIGION  AND   THE   STATE. 


Since  entering  upon  this  discussion,  the 
writer  has  been  reminded  more  than  once  of 
the  words  of  Jehovah  to  Israel:  *<Thou  shalt 
take  no  gift;  for  the  gift  blindeth  the  wise, 
and  perverteth  the  words  of  the  righteous." 

The  deep  wisdom  of  this  prohibition,  and 
the  tremendous  force  of  the  reason  for  it, 
have  come  into  his  mind  like  a  new  revela- 
tion. For  besides  a  painful  sense  of  reluc- 
tance to  advocate  a  view  which  condemns,  in 
some  measure,  the  practice  of  his  brethren  in 
the  past,  and  calls  upon  them  to  forego  a  large 
amount  of  pecuniary  aid  for  the  future,  he  has 
been  forced  to  recognize  an  ever-obtruding  con- 
sciousness of  the  fiscal  relations  of  the  matter 
to  his  friends  and  himself,  and  to  see  in  many 
others  the  same  tendency  to  study  the  princi- 
ples under  examination  in  the  light  of  the 
money  at  stake.  But  this  light  is  an  ignis 
fatuus,  sure  to  lead  the  mind  astray.  It  is 
better  to  look  at  principles  in  the  dry  light  of 


GENERAL   OBSERVATIONS.  141 


reason,  or  in  the  great  and  holy  light  of  love. 

It  is  safer  to  turn  the  mind  away  from  self, 
and  ask  what  would  be  the  bearing:  of  action  in 
harmony  with  a  given  doctrine,  upon  the  char- 
acter of  the  poeple  and  the  success  of  another 
denomination.  Would  the  Presbyterians  incur 
any  serious  risk  of  harm,  should  they  hereafter 
accept  from  the  government  "protection  and 
nothing  more?''  Would  the  Congregational- 
ists  lose  anything  worthy  of  special  regret,  by 
declining  from  this  hour  all  pecuniary  aid  from 
the  State? 

A  distinguished  Methodist  is  said  to  have 
remarked,  within  a  few  weeks,  that  the  Papal 
doctrine  of  the  relation  of  Church  and  State 
is  correct,  for  the  State  ought  to  serve  the 
Church — only  it  should  serve  the  right  Church; 
but  would  the  Methodists  be  strengthened  in 
spiritual  might  by  wielding  the  forces  of  the 
State?  or  Aveakened  by  losing  its  patronage? 
These  questions   do  not   refer   to   the    secular 


142  RELIGIOX  AND  THE  STATE. 


power  of  churches,  but  solely  to  their  spiritual 
power,  their  ability  to  reach  the  souls  of  men 
and  lead  them  to  Christ.  For  it  canuot  be  de- 
nied that  a  Church,  which  has  virtual  control 
of  the  sword  and  purse  of  the  whole  people, 
may  do  much  to  enforce  certain  rites  and  forms 
of  religion.  Indeed,  the  power  of  the  State 
never  seems  to  be  more  terrible  than  when  it 
is  directed  by  priestly  counsels  to  the  exter- 
mination of  alleged  heresy.  But  this  is  not 
spiritual  power.  It  does  not  fill  the  churches 
with  believing  souls.  It  does  not  carry  the 
gospel  of  peace  and  love  to  the  ends  of  the 
earth. 

Protestant  missions  appear  to  be  the  only 
ones  that  truly  illuminate  the  minds,  elevate 
the  purposes,  and  Christianize  the  life  of  the 
heathen,  and  Protestant  missions  are  the  work 
of  spontaneous  charity.  Let  no  man,  then, 
reject  the  doctrine  of  "protection  and  nothiug 
more,"   because  he  shrinks  from  the   sacrifice 


GENERAL   OBSERVATIONS.  143 

which  it  calls  upon  his  own  denomination  to 
make. 

The  writer  cannot  deny  himself  the  pleasure 
of  borrowing  an  illustration  from  the  paper  read 
by  Dr.  AYoolsey,  of  New  Haven,  before  the 
Evangelical  Alliance.    - 

'*Dr.  Dwight,  President  of  Yale  College,  a 
wise  and  large-minded  man,  died  in  1816, 
while  an  agitation  was  going  on  in  Connec- 
ticut, which  destroyed  in  1818  the  last  faint 
trace  of  State  religion  in  that  Commonwealth. 
I  can  remember,  as  a  boy,  that  he  thought  thnt 
the  foundations  of  religion  were  giving  way; 
and  in  this  feelino^  of  his  there  were  mins^led 
no  elements  of  sectarianism.  So  Dr.  Lyman 
Beecher,  also  one  of  his  scholars,  a  hopeful, 
courageous,  seK-relying  man.  Of  the  crisis  he 
writes,  being  then  a  pastor  of  an  important 
church  in  the  State : 

**  'It  was  as  dark  a  day  as  ever  I  saw.  The 
injury  to  the  cause  of  Christ,  as  we  then  sup- 


144  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

posed,  was  irreparable.  For  several  days  I  suf- 
fered what  uo  tongue  can  tell  for  the  best  thing 
that  ever  happened  to  the  churches.  It  cut  the 
churches  loose  from  dependence  on  State  sup- 
port. It  threw  them  wholly  on  their  own  re- 
sources and  on  God.  They  say  ministers  have 
lost  their  influence;  the  fact  is,  they  have 
gained.  By  voluntary  efforts,  societies,  mis- 
sions, and  revivals,  they  exert  a  deeper  in- 
fluence than  ever  they  could  by  queues,  and 
shoe-buckles,  and  cocked  hats,  and  gold-headed 
canes.'  " 

Yet,  looked  at  from  another  point  of  view, 
to  wit:  the  duty  of  the  State  to  treat  all  relig- 
ions, considered  as  religions,  and  all  religious 
sects  in  one  and  the  same  way — a  treatment 
which  they  can  claim  as  their  due — it  must  be 
concluded  that  whatever  relief  from  pecuniary 
burdens  is  granted  to  one  should  be  granted  to 
all,  and  that  any  religious  sect  would  have  just 
reason  for  complaint  should  the  State  discrim- 


GENERAL   OBSERVATIONS.  145 

inate  against  it  on   religious   grounds.     Civil 
rulers  have  no  right  to  wield  the  power  of  the 
State  for  one  religion  or  sect  in  preference  to 
another.     They  should  grant  the  same  privi- 
leges to  all. 

But,  we  add,  it  will  be  forever  true  in  the 
realm  of  spirit,  that  **it  is  more  blessed  to  give 
than  to  receive."  These  words  from  the  lips  of 
Jesus,  preserved  by  the  greatest  of  the  apostles, 
suggest  the  line  of  spiritual  advance  for  his  peo- 
ple. Not  by  grasping,  but  by  giving;  not  by 
begging  the  favor  of  princes,  but  by  offering  the 
truth  freely  to  all ;  not  by  leaning  upon  others 
for  support,  but  by  going  to  the  help  of  the 
weak,  will  they  find  joy  and  strength.  That 
which  tests  their  faith,  invigorates  it.  That 
which  enkindles  their  love,  ennobles  and  aug- 
ments it. 

The  servants  of  Christ  grow  into  his  likeness 
by  following  in  his  steps,  and  the  story  of  his 
work  on  earth  may  be  condensed  into  these 
10 


146  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

words,  He  gave  his  life  for  the  sheep.  Yet, 
He  said,  My  peace  I  leave  with  you;  my  peace 
I  give  unto  you.  The  most  bountiful  was  the 
most  blessed.  And  the  Church  will  then  be 
strongest  and  fairest  and  most  jubilant,  when  it 
is  most  self-forgetful  and  self-sacrificing,  giving 
always  with  a  willing  mind  to  those  who  are  in 
need. 


FURTHER    REMARKS. 

It  TT^ill  be  recollected  that,  according  to  the 
view  maintained  in  these  pages,  the  great  end 
or  office  of  the  State  is  to  protect  men  in  their 
natural  rights — their  right  to  life,  unless  it  is 
forfeited  by  crime;  their  right  to  liberty  of 
action,  unless  that  action  is  injurious  to  others ; 
and  their  right  to  property,  the  product  of  their 
own  labor,  unless  a  fraction  of  it  be  required 
for  the  support  of  government.  But  many  per- 
sons will  reject  this  view,  and  hasten  to  deny 
that  the  functions  of  civil  government  arc  sim- 
ply protective.  Possibly  they  are  right  in  so 
doing;  at  all  events,  such  are  the  limits  set  to 
this  discussion,  that  the  writer  cannot  attempt 
to  confirm  his  own  view,  or  refute  theirs,  by 


148  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

further  ars^ument.  Nor  is  it  needful  to  do 
so;  for  ilie  doctrine  that  the  relation  between 
Church  and  State  is  properly  one  of  friendly 
independence,  does  not  rest  on  the  particular 
theory  of  the  true  end  of  the  State,  which  has 
been  advocated  by  the  writer. 

For  *'the  powders  that  be"  may  aim  to  pro- 
mote as  well  as  to  protect  the  secular  interests 
of  the  people,  and  yet  restrict  their  action  to 
that  class  of  interests,  leaving  the  propagation 
of  religion  to  the  agencies  which  God  has  ap- 
pointed for  that  service,  to  the  Word,  and  the 
Spirit,  and  the  Church  of  Christ. 

And  it  can  hardly  be  questioned  that  Baptists 
have  intended  from  the  first  to  maintain  this 
division  of  labor  between  the  respective  forces 
of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  and  the  rulers  of 
mankind,  confining  the  action  of  the  State,  as 
far  as  was  in  their  power,  to  civil  or  secular 
affairs. 

In   proof   of   this   statement,    two   or   three 


FURTHER  REMARKS.  149 

passages  may  be  cited  from  documents  of  the 
highest  authority. 

Tiie  first  written  compact  (1637),  now  in 
existence,  of  the  inhabitants  of  Providence, 
Ehode  Island,  reads  as  follows: 

**Wc  whose  names  are  hereunder,  desirous 
to  inhabit  in  the  town  of  Providence,  do  prom- 
ise to  subject  ourselves  in  active  or  passive 
obedience  to  all  such  orders  or  agreements  as 
shall  be  made  for  public  good  of  the  body,  in 
ail  orderly  way,  by  the  major  assent  of  the 
present  inhabitants,  masters  of  families,  and 
such  others  as  they  shall  admit  into  them,  only 
in  civil  things;"  and  there  cannot  surely  be  a 
doubt  in  any  one's  mind  as  to  the  purport  of 
the  last  and  limitins^  clause. 

Eoger  Williams  and  his  associates  meant  to 
restrict  the  action  of  the  State  to  secular  af- 
fairs, and  to  deny  it  any  control  over  religion, 
Vvhether  by  way  of  patronage  or  repression.  In 
the  time  of  Isaac  Backus  the   same  theory  of 


150  RELIGION  AND   THE  STATE. 

civil  government  was  strenuously  asserted  by 
Baptists.  A  memorial  was  addressed  by  them 
to  the  General  Court  of  Massachusetts  in  1775, 
which  contained  the  following  words  : 

*'For  a  civil  Legislature  to  impose  religious 
taxes  is,  we  conceive,  a  power  Avhich  their 
constituents  never  had  to  give,  and  therefore 
going  entirely  out  of  their  jurisdiction.  We 
are  persuaded  that  an  entire  freedom  from 
being  taxed  by  civil  rulers  to  religious  worship 
is  not  a  mere  favor  from  any  man  or  men  in  the 
world;  but  a  right  and  property  granted  us  by 
God,  who  commands  us  to  stand  fast  in  it. 
We  should  wrong  our  consciences  by  allowing 
that  power  to  men  which  we  believe  belongs 
only  to  God.'' 

It  is  needless  to  adduce  other  testimonies, 
for  the  historical  fact  stated  above  will  not  be 
denied.  But  it  should  bo  remarked — for  on 
this  point  there  appears  to  be  some  doubt — 
that  there  is  no  difference  in  principle  between 


FURTHER  REMARKS.  151 

taxing  the  property  of  men,  for  the  support  of 
a  form  of  religion  which  they  reject,  and  re- 
leasing from  taxation  property  used  for  the 
benefit  of  that  form  of  religion.  The  only 
difference  is  this:  In  the  former  case,  the 
process  is  direct  and  open;  in  the  latter,  it  is 
indirect  and  covert. 

If  church  property  ought  to  be  exempted 
from  taxation  on  religious  grounds,  the  ques- 
tion at  issue  is  settled  forever;  the  State  has 
a  right  to  tax  Baptists  for  the  support  of  Uni- 
tarians, or  Presbyterians  for  the  support  of  Ro- 
man Catholics,  and  vice  versa.  But  there  are 
few  intelligent  Protestants  in  the  country  who 
will  advocate  such  a  view.  Here  and  there 
a  voice  may  be  heard  saying,  that  the  State 
ought  to  support  the  Church,  meaning  the  right 
Church;  but  surely,  it  is  too  late  in  the  history 
of  the  world  to  impose  upon  civil  rulers  the 
duty  of  ascertaining  for  the  people  which  or 
what  is  the  true  Church,  or  to  require  them  to 


152  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

recognize  the  Church  which  a  majority  of  the 
people  favor  as  the  true  Church.  Political  lead- 
ers or  majorities  are  by  no  means  qualified  to 
settle  religious  questions. 

But  ought  not  the  State  as  such  to  recognize 
God  and  religion?  Nay,  more,  ought  it  not  to 
recognize  Cliristianity  as  the  true  religion,  and 
thus  proclaim  itself  a  Christian  State?  Most 
certainly  it  should  do  this,  if  the  common  law 
of  England  and  America  is  to  be  allowed  to 
furnish  the  answer.  Most  certainly,  too,  if  the 
views  of  distinguished  statesmen  are  to  be  re- 
ceived as  conclusive.  Most  certainly,  again, 
if  civil  government  is  bound  to  use  its  power 
in  every  sphere  of  life  for  the  promotion  of 
every  good  cause. 

But  if  these  things  be  granted,  the  State 
ought  to  go  still  further,  and  sustain  in  the 
sphere  of  religion  that  which  is  purest  and 
best,  that  form  of  religion,  or  that  denomination 
of  Christians  which  holds  the  most  truth  with 


FURTHER   REMARKS.  153 

the  least  error.  If  there  be  such  a  thing  as 
a  State-conscience  towards  God,  which  has  a 
right  to  enforce  its  claims  by  purse  and  sword, 
it  surely  has  a  right  to  keep  itself  pure  by  en- 
forcing all  its  claims.  But  there  is  no  such 
conscience.  For  the  State  is  not  a  living  per- 
son; it  has  no  common  soul. 

The  fifyment  of  an  oro^anic  life  of  the  State 
should  have  been  buried  and  foro^otten  lono:  ao^o. 
Here,  if  anywhere,  mysticism  is  out  of  place, 
and  men  ought  to  deal  simply  with  facts,  look- 
ing at  human  government  in  a  practical  way. 

Looking,  then,  at  facts  alone,  one  is  com- 
pelled to  say,  that  there  are  certain  ends  which 
a  State  can  accomplish  without  interfering  with 
other  institutions  equally  divine,  and  there  are 
other  ends  which  it  cannot  thus  accomplish, 
though  they  are  no  less  important  in  them- 
selves. 

To  the  former  belongs  the  regulation  of 
niarringe,   at   least,  to   a  certain   extent.     For 


154  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

example,  polygamy  may  be  treated  as  a  crime 
against  society,  and  therefore  amenable  to  the 
laws  of  the  State.  For,  apart  from  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Scriptures,  it  is  evident  that  mar- 
riage is  the  normal  condition  of  men  and 
women.  Both  are  adapted  by  their  physical, 
mental,  and  moral  nature,  for  this  condition. 
And  the  number  of  the  one  sex  qualified  and 
disposed  to  enter  the  marriage  state  is  about 
equal  to  that  of  the  other,  the  world  over. 
Hence  any  man  who  appropriates  two  women 
to  himself,  deprives  another  of  a  blessing  to 
which  he  is  entitled  by  the  very  constitution 
of  his  being ;  and  such  an  act  should  be  pro- 
hibited by  the  State  as  a  violation  of  natural 
right. 

The  only  alternatives  on  a  large  scale,  are 
monogamy  and  sexual  communism.  But  the 
latter  is  demonstrably  incompatible  with  the 
higher  and  purer  instincts  of  our  nature,  as 
well  as  with  the  proper  support  and  training  of 


FURTHER  REMARKS.  155 

children.  The  State,  then,  without  regard  to 
tlie  claims  of  religion,  should  enforce  the  law 
of  monogamy,  as  against  communism  or  polyg- 
amy. In  doing  this,  it  will  of  course  have 
the  united  and  hearty  support  of  Christians; 
their  religious  convictions,  their  consistent  ex- 
ample, and  their  strong  social  influence  will 
make  the  task  of  the  State  comparatively  easy 
in  every  country  where  they  are  numerous. 

But  there  are  other  ends  that  must  be  sought 
by  different  means.  For  instance,  God  has  not 
seen  fit  to  entrust  the  interests  of  his  spiritual 
reign  over  men  to  the  State,  but  rather  to  the 
free  action  of  his  people,  under  the  guidance  of 
his  Word  and  Spirit.  Every  member  of  the 
State,  whether  officer  or  private  citizen,  has 
indeed  a  conscience,  and  is  bound  to  act  for 
himself  in  behalf  of  the  truth  as  it  is  in  Jesus. 
For  worship  is  evermore,  and  by  the  nature  of 
the  case,  a  free  and  personal  act.  Just  so  far 
as  it  becomes  a  mere  legal  formula,  an  act,  not 


156  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

oi  human  souls,  but  of  State  routine,  does  it 
lose  its  true  character,  and  become  an  insult 
and  offence  to  God. 

If,  then,  the  people  wish  to  honor  the  Most 
High,  let  them  receive  his  truth  into  their 
hearts,  form  churches  after  the  Apostolic  ex- 
ample, preach  the  gospel  to  old  and  young  in 
every  corner  of  the  land,  select  men  for  their 
rulers  who  fear  God  and  work  righteousness, 
and  insist  that  all  shall  be  free  to  worship 
Jehovah  or  refrain  from  his  worship,  as  their 
consciences  dictate,  without  constraint  and  with- 
out molestation — and  the  nation  will  become 
Christian  in  the  only  true  sense  of  the  Word. 
But  to  put  the  word  "God"  into  the  Constitu- 
tion, or  any  Christian  formula  into  public  doc- 
uments, will  amount  to  nothing.  If  the  Pres- 
ident desires  to  speak  and  act  as  a  Christian 
man,  let  him  do  so,  for  it  is  one  of  his  natural 
rights.  If  the  Houses  of  Congress  desire  to 
worship  God,   let  them   do   so,   at  their   own 


FURTHER  REMARKS.  157 


charges,  or  by  the  favor  of  the  clergy.  But  let 
there  be  no  attempt  by  the  State  to  patronize 
religion,  much  less  to  support  it  by  purse  or 
sword.  Christians  may  certainly  do  many  good  y  ^ 
things  by  means  of  the  State,  just  as  they  can 
do  many  good  things  by  means  of  the  steam- 
engine  or  the  electric  telegraph ;  but  thc}^  can- 
not safely  employ  it  in  the  realm  of  spiritual 
life ;  its  rough  and  compulsory  forces  belong  to 
a  lower  plane  of  action,  and  must  not  be  turned 
asrainst  the  conscience. 

Again,  Christians  may  sometimes  be  respon- 
sible for  the  existence  and  character  of  the  State ; 
but  the  converse  of  this  is  never  true,  that  the 
State  is  responsible  for  the  existence  and  char- 
acter of  Christians.  It  is  not  a  religious  insti- 
tution, nor  can  it  be  made  to  do  the  work  of 
such  an  institution,  without  usurping  the  func- 
tions of  a  Church  and  trampling  on  the  con- 
sciences of  men.     Even  then   it  will  no   more 


158  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

do  the  work  of  a  Christian  Church  than  a  whirl- 
wind will  do  the  work  of  a  syllogism. 

In  stating  some  of  the  reasons  for  his  view  of 
the  proper  relation  of  the  State  to  religion,  the 
writer  begs  leave  to  refer  again  to  a  lesson  of 
the  past,  which  may  have  weight  as  a  prudential 
consideration.  Every  reader  of  history  is  fa- 
miliar with  instances  of  the  confiscation  of 
ecclesiastical  property  by  the  State.  These 
acts  have  generally  been  stigmatized  as  deeds 
of  robbery  and  sacrilege.  And  from  certain 
points  of  view  they  must  always  be  so  regarded. 

Yet  it  should  not  be  forgotten,  that,  in  many 
cases  the  rulers  of  the  people  have  but  re- 
claimed by  force  what  they  had  given  with- 
out right.  By  releasing  the  vast  possessions 
of  the  Church  from  taxation,  they  had  been 
compelled  to  exact  larger  sums  from  the  labor- 
ing poor,  and  had  thus  added  year  by  year 
to  the  wealth  of  the  former,  by  deepening  the 
poverty  of  the  latter.     It  is   true   that   these 


FURTHER  REMARKS.  159 

great  monastic  establishments  Tvere  expected  to 
bestow  alms  on  the  poor;  but  was  it  just  to 
render  the  people  objects  of  charity  by  show- 
ing special  favor  to  those  who  were  building 
up  charitable  institutions  ?  Would  it  not  have 
been  more  equitable  to  relieve  the  secular  es- 
tates and  the  common  people  of  oppressive 
burdens,  by  a  moderate  tax  on  ecclesiastical 
property,  thus  preventing  pauperism,  than  to 
provide  for  the  relief  of  poverty  by  means 
which  multiplied  the  number  of  the  poor? 
And  especially  when  it  is  recollected  that 
only  a  small  fraction  of  the  vast  church  rev- 
enues went  to  the  aid  of  paupers,  most  of  it 
going  to  the  support  of  an  idle  and  sometimes 
vicious  clergy  ? 

In  view  of  all  this,  it  may  be  said  that  there 
has  been  a  sort  of  rough  and  grim  justice  meted 
out  to  religious  orders,  or  ecclesiastical  au- 
thorities, by  some  of  the  acts  of  confiscation, 
wresting  from   them  hoarded    treasures.     Or, 


160  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

if  this  language  be  objectionable,  it  may  at 
least  be  said,  that  the  State  has  only  reclaimed 
by  force  a  little  more  than  it  gave  -without 
right;  that  having  largely  increased  the  prop- 
erty in  question,  by  layiug  unjustly  the  whole 
burden  of  taxation  on  other  property  for  cen- 
turies, it  has  at  length  reversed  the  proc- 
ess, taking  unlawfully  even  more  than  it  gave 
unjustly. 

But  is  there  any  danger  of  great  accumula- 
tions of  property  in  the  hands  of  American 
ecclesiastics  ?  Is  there  a  particle  of  reason  to 
fear  that  any  Church  will  draw  from  the  people 
larger  sums  for  sectarian  purposes  than  the 
good  of  the  country  requires  ?  or  that  religious 
corporations,  favored  by  the  State,  will  obtain 
through  their  wealth  a  power  which  is  far  from 
religious  or  safe?  These  questions  are  relevant 
to  the  discussion  at  its  present  stage,  and  their 
answer  must  be  a  decided  affirmative. 

If  the  writer  is  not  misinformed,  there  are 


FURTHER  REMARKS.  161 

Bishops  in  the  land  who  have  not  scrupled  to 
make  use  of  their  vast  revenues  to  control  leg- 
islation. 

The  Protestants  of  St.  Louis  have  felt  in 
times  past,  it  is  said,  not  simply  the  spiritual, 
but  also  the  secular  power  of  a  distinguished 
prelate  of  that  city,  and  have  found  the  taxing 
of  church  property  a  benefit  rather  than  an  evil. 
The  Protestants  of  other  cities  would  doubtless 
have  the  same  experience,  and  come  to  the 
same  conclusion,  if  they  were  wise  and  strong 
enouofh  to  obtain  such  a  law.  But  whatever 
may  be  thought  of  the  past,  so  far  as  this  land 
is  concerned,  there  are  influences  now  at  work 
which  tend  to  put  vast  accumulations  of  eccle- 
siastical wealth  in  the  hands  of  a  few  men  at 
the  head  of  certain  denominations,  and  it  is 
worthy-  of  serious  reflection  whether,  in  the 
light  of  mere  prudence,  it  is  wise  to  exempt 
such  wealth  from  taxation. 

The  testimony  of  history  is  a  warning  against 
11 


162  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

these  accumulations,  as  being  likely  to  wield  a 
mighty  influence  in  the  political  world.  If 
they  cannot  be  altogether  prevented,  they  can 
at  least  be  left  without  encouragement.  Yet  it 
will  be  found  impossible  to  discriminate  be- 
tween property  held  for  religious  purposes  by 
one  or  five  men,  and  that  held  by  large  num- 
bers of  men.  If  a  Protestant  congregation  may 
hold  and  use,  without  taxes,  property  worth 
fifty  thousand  dollars,  it  will  be  difficult  to 
prevent  a  Roman  Catholic  Bishop,  or  three 
ecclesiastics  with  two  laymen,  as  in  New  York, 
from  holding  and  using  fifty  millions  of  prop- 
erty, without  taxes,  for  the  same  alleged  ends. 
With  these  remarks,  the  writer  submits  the 
subject  to  Christians  of  every  name.  It  is  cer- 
tainly worthy  of  their  careful  consideration, 
and  it  has  been  his  aim  to  present  it  in  the 
fairest  manner  possible.  There  may  be  defects 
in  his  statement  of  principles,  or  errors  in  his 
application  of  them,  but  that  the  general  views 


FURTHER  REMARKS.  163 

set  forth  in  this  discussiou  are  correct,  he   is 
unable  to  doubt. 

And  it  is  hoped  that  by  this  examination, 
with  others  more  thorough  and  equally  dis- 
passionate from  abler  pens,  some  real  progress 
may  be  made  towards  a  full  comprehension  of 
the  great  question  at  issue,  and  the  churches 
be  led  to  favor  such  action  in  the  future  as 
will  best  accord  with  the  will  of  the  Master, 
whose  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world.  If  love 
to  the  truth  and  love  to  one  another  prevail, 
no  evil  can  result  from  the  freest  discussion  of 
such  a  topic. 


As  some  of  the  questions  noticed  in  this  dis- 
cussion have  been  recently  pressed  upon  the 
attention  of  the  public,  by  persons  who  are 
considered  unfriendly  to  religion,  the  writer 
will  be  pardoned  for  recapitulating  briefly,  the 
principles  set  forth  by  him,  and  adding  a  few 
thoughts  not  before  expressed. 

The  State  is  not  an  end,  or  a  good  in  itself; 
but  simply  a  means  to  an  end.  It  has  no  per- 
sonality, or  life,  or  worth  of  its  own.  It  exists 
by  the  will  of  the  people  and  for  the  good  of 
the  people.  Its  value  is  found  in  the  service 
which  it  renders  to  the  men  who  constitute  it; 
for  these  are  immortal,  and  the  characters  which 
they  form  in  this  life  will  be  theirs  forever. 


RESUME.  165 

The  State  is  not  a  parent,  and  the  people  chil- 
dren, nor  an  employer,  and  the  people  employ- 
ees ;  nor  a  giver  of  bread  and  the  people  panpers. 
To  imagine  it  identical  in  nature  with  an  Ori- 
ental monarchy,  a  great  business  firm,  or  a 
gigantic  poor-house,  is  to  forget  the  best  les- 
sons of  history,  and  revive  the  political  notions 
of  an  age  long  past.  It  may  serve  as  a  comple- 
ment to  the  family,  the  church,  the  college,  the 
fii^m ;  but  it  differs  from  every  one  of  these  in 
nature  as  well  as  purpose. 

For  the  supreme  end  of  the  State  is  the  pro- 
tection of  the  people  in  the  exercise  of  their 
natural  rights.  If  this  were  needless,  if  every 
man  were  duly  respected  by  every  other  man, 
civil  government  would  have  little  or  nothing 
to  do.  Other  and  simpler  agencies  would  soon 
take  its  place.  United  action  would  sometimes 
be  needed  for  the  achievement  of  difficult  enter- 
prises; but  it  could  be  readily  secured  without 


1G6  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

constraint.  Protection  is  therefore  the  supreme 
end  of  human  government. 

The  State  should  afford  reasonable  protection 
to  the  lives  of  the  people.  In  doiug  this,  be- 
sides punishing  violence,  it  may  guard  the  door 
of  admission  to  medical  practice,  may  enforce 
sanitary  regulations  in  times  of  pestilence,  and 
may  prohibit  the  sale  of  anything  dangerous  to 
health.  It  may  also  enter  the  family  circle  and 
prevent  parents  from  neglecting  their  helpless 
children,  or  children  from  neglecting  their  fee- 
ble parents.  In  a  word,  it  may  do  all  that 
oujrht  to  be  done  in  this  direction. 

The  State  should  also  protect  the  liberties 
of  the  people.  And  among  these  the  highest 
place  belongs  to  liberty  of  worship.  With  this 
*'the  powers  that  be"  can  never  justly  inter- 
fere, unless  it  takes  a  course  incompatible  with 
rights  which  they  are  called  to  defend.  But  no 
man   can   be   permitted  to  wrong  his   brother, 


RESUME.  167 


even  though  it  be  under  pretext  of  conscience 
towards  God. 

The  State  should  likewise  protect  the  people 
in  holding  and  using  their  property.  For  the 
fruits  of  labor  be]ong  of  right  to  the  laborer. 
He  who  creates  a  value  is  the  natural  owner  of 
it.  But  there  is  need  of  peculiar  caution  in  the 
application  of  this  principle;  for  no  man  has 
the  same  original  right  to  the  soil  which  he 
cultivates,  or  to  the  materials  of  Nature  which 
he  employs,  that  he  has  to  the  improvement 
which  he  makes  in  them,  or  to  the  value  which 
he  adds  to  them.  A  discussion  of  this  vital 
question  in  political  economy  does  not,  how- 
ever, come  within  the  intended  scope  of  this 
essay.  But  since  it  is  a  question  of  growing 
interest,  a  few  hints  may  be  offered  to  those 
who  have  given  it  little  thought. 

The  earth  itself,  and  especially  the  surface 
of  the  earth,  is  God's  gift  to  mankind,  for  the 
benelit  of  all.    'But  this  circumstance  does  not, 


163  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

as  some  appear  to  think,  prove  that  it  must 
remain  forever  midiviclecl,  the  common  pos- 
session and  camping-ground  of  the  whole  race. 
For  the  value  of  any  part  of  it  is  chiefly 
due  to  cultivation  by  the  hand  of  man;  while 
the  privilege  of  personal  ownership  is  by  far 
the  strongest  motive  to  this  cultivation.  But 
ownership  is  valid  and  practical  no  farther  than 
it  is  protected  by  the  State.  Plainly,  therefore, 
the  State  ousfht  to  assure  to  individuals  a  title 
to  portions  of  the  soil.  But  this  title  should 
be  given  on  such  terms  and  with  such  limita- 
tions as  best  accord  with  the  right  of  the  peo- 
ple to  life,  liberty,  and  the  fruit  of  their  labor. 
Moreover,  the  State  should  protect  itself,  its 
purity  and  character,  by  requiring  the  people 
to  obtain  in  some  way  an  education  that  will 
qualify  them  for  the  discharge  of  their  civil 
duties.  And  the  citizens  of  a  free  republic, 
called  to  select  their  own  rulers,  need  more 
than  the  rudiments  of  learning  to  prepare  them 


RESUME.  169 


for  intelligent  action.  But  whatever  the  stand- 
ard may  be,  up  to  that  standard  they  should  be 
brought,  lest  the  blind  lead  the  blind,  and  both 
fall  into  the  ditch.  So  much  education  may 
certainly  be  given  by  schools  supported  by  the 
State. 

The  revenues  of  the  State  should  be  drawn, 
as  equitably  as  possible,  from  all  the  persons 
and  property  under  its  protection.  This  will 
be  recognized  by  every  man  as  a  just  rule;  but 
in  applying  it,  differences  of  opinion  will  be  sure 
to  appear.  Self-interest  will  cast  its  shadow 
over  this  mind  from  one  point,  and  over  that 
from  another.  Here  partial  knowledge,  there 
strong  desire,  will  lead  to  error  of  judgment. 
One  will  believe  that  incomes  should  be  taxed, 
anothel'  that  property  should  bear  the  burdens. 
And  much  that  is  plausible  can  be  urged  by 
every  man  in  support  of  his  own  view.  Yet  it 
is  important  for  those  who  justify  the  exemp- 


170  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

tion  of  certain  kinds  of  property,  to  bear   in 
mind  several  facts;  namely: 

1.  The  property  in  question,  whatever  it  be, 
has  been  put  to  the  use  which  it  now  serves  by 
the  free  act  of  its  owners.  It  is  just  where 
they  choose  to  have  it,  and  doing  just  the  ser- 
vice which  they  prefer  to  have  it  do.  In  a 
majority  of  cases,  though  not  in  all,  it  would 
have  been  put  in  the  same  form,  to  do  the  same 
work,  had  it  been  subject  to  taxation  from  the 
first. 

2.  The  protection  of  this  property  by  the 
State  gives  it  a  considerable  part  of  its  value 
for  the  use  to  which  it  is  applied.  Thus  the 
State  is  actually  doing  something  every  year  to 
preserve  or  increase  its  value.  It  watches  over 
it  by  day  and  by  night.  It  defends  it  from  the 
thief,  the  robber,  and  the  mob.  It  warns  every 
man  to  avoid  every  act  that  can  interfere  with 
the  use  of  that  property  for  the  purpose  chosen. 
And  often  in  large  cities,  through  the  protection 


RESUME.  171 


of  government  and  the  enterprise  of  business, 
this  property  increases  in  value  almost  a  hun- 
dred fold,  so  that  the  favored  organization  is 
made  rich.  Who  of  us  is  conscious  of  his  full 
obligation  to  the  State  for  his  peace  in  the 
house  of  God?  or  for  his  success  in  the  rooms 
of  any  great  Christian  Society  ? 

3.  The  State  is  supported,  in  part,  at  least, 
by  taxes  levied  upon  the  property  of  the  peo- 
ple; and  therefore,  if  a  part  of  that  property  is 
devoted  to  uses  which  exempt  it  from  taxation, 
a  heavier  burden  must  be  laid  upon  the  rest. 
Is  not  this  the  same  in  effect  as  a  gift  from  the 
State  of  the  amount  saved  to  the  Church  by  ex- 
emption? It  must  be,  if  we  look  at  the  matter 
from  a  simply  fiscal  point  of  view.  But  would 
Christians  of  any  name  in  this  land  be  willing 
to  commit  themselves  for  the  future  to  the  pol- 
icy of  receiving  from  the  State  a  yearly  stipend 
for  the  prosecution  of  their  work,  that  stipend 
being  exacted  from  the   people  without  regard 


172  RELIGIOX  AND  THE    STATE, 

to  their  religious  belief?  If  not,  then  it  is 
clear  that  they  should  not  wish  their  church 
property  to  be  relieved  permanently  from  tax- 
ation. 

But  it  is  said,  that  much  property  besides 
that  which  is  held  by  Christian  churches,  is 
exempted  from  taxation;  and  that  if  the  ex- 
emption is  withdrawn  from  the  latter,  it  should 
be  from  the  former  also.  This  is  no  doubt 
correct;  but  the  present  essay  is  concerned 
with  the  honor  and  influence  of  religion,  es- 
pecially the  Christian  religion,  and  the  writer 
is  chiefly  solicitous  to  have  Christians  look  at 
the  question  with  candor  from  as  many  points 
of  view  as  they  can  take.  If  the  true  spirit, 
the  very  genius  of  Christianity  requires  the 
friendly  independence  of  Church  and  State,  it 
is  highly  important  for  the  followers  of  Christ 
to  see  this,  and  act  in  harmony  with  their  Mas- 
ter's will.  It  must  be  wiser  for  them  to  do 
this    of   free    choice   under    the    pure   light   of 


RESUME.  173 


truth,  than  to  be  coustmined  to  do  it  by  the 
wrath  of  evil  men,  which  is  so  often  overruled 
for  good  in  the  progress  of  events. 

It  has  also  l)een  said,  that  churches  render 
invaluable  service  to  the  State,  more  than  equal 
to  the  favor  of  exemption.  This  may  also  be 
true;  but  it  is  not  usual  for  good  men  to  ex- 
pect a  recompense  in  this  life  for  their  moral 
influence  or  their  liberality  to  the  poor.  Be- 
sides, the  service  which  churches  render  to  the 
State  is  incidental;  it  is  not  an  end  distinctl}^ 
contemplated  in  their  organization.  Still  fur- 
ther, they  are  more  numerous  in  many  local- 
ities than  the  service  which  they  render  to  the 
State  requires.  Why  should  the  government 
release  from  taxation  three  houses  of  worshi23  in 
a  small  town,  when  a  single  house  would  accom- 
modate all  the  worshippers  who  can  be  brought 
together,  and  when  the  different  churches  are 
equally  useful  as  a  police  force  ?  And  lastly, 
it  is  not  certain  that  such  a  church  as  the  Cath- 


174  RELIGION  AND  THE  STATE. 

olic  will  always  be  useful  in  a  free  State.  It 
may  now  be  useful  in  this  country,  and  indeed 
the  writer  presumes  that  it  is ;  but  for  a  single 
important  reason  he  cannot  repress  a  fear  that 
it  will  not  always  remain  so. 

The  head  of  that  church,  residing  in  a  for- 
eign land,  is  supposed  to  be  infallible.  If  he 
is  not  so  in  reality,  but  is  liable  to  fall  into 
error  and  sin,  even  when  acting  as  head  of  the 
church,  his  authority  is  such  as  to  make  those 
who  submit  to  it  without  reserve  an  element  of 
some  danger  in  a  republic.  For  a  man  who 
is  obeyed  as  infallible  may  have  ambitious 
thoughts,  plans,  purposes,  not  altogether  in 
harmony  with  the  spirit  of  freedom  and  free 
institutions.  The  case  is  very  different  when 
the  infallible  authority  is  a  book  which  has  no 
ambition  to  gratify,  no  personal  aim  or  preju- 
dice to  affect  its  teaching,  and,  above  all,  when 
every  man  is  encouraged  to  interpret  that  book 
for  himself.     History  has  proved  that  the  in- 


RESUME.  175 


fluence  of  the  Bible,  freely  interpreted  by 
Protestants,  will  never  endanger  a  republican 
form  of  government.  Can  the  same  be  said 
without  qualification  of  the  influence  of  the 
Papal  See?  If  so,  the  suggestion  of  doubt  in 
respect  to  the  possible  attitude  of  that  church 
towards  the  State  hereafter,  may  be  passed  by 
us  superfluous. 


